Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WARx2 (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted for various reasons. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WARx2[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film. The references listed are almost all just the same synopsis on different sites (plus a couple unreliable reviews). Besides the previous deletion, it has been deleted at AfD twice before under a different title. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This would qualify to be deleted for sheer promotional fluff, given the prose in the article. Now there is one review at Rotten Tomatoes, which is helpful, but I'm somewhat leery given the limited coverage of the film. Now something that I need to highlight is that the following sentence is incorrect:

This film was listed as the best film of the year by PBS Television along with Dinesh D'souza's America film.

I've e-mailed PBS and asked them about this and this list was aggregated by awards given out at various film festivals. It is not an award from PBS itself and the representative from PBS was fairly specific in that the list should not be seen as an award by PBS - or even an endorsement. If anything, they seemed very upset that someone was trying to claim an award that does not exist because the list is an aggregate and not an award or recognition at all. This claim deliberately and grossly misrepresents the PBS article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing this seems to have in its favor is the RT review. None of the fan ratings are usable - and this is one situation where I am very, very skeptical of the ratings given how much the film's crew has marketed the film and how incredibly deceptive their marketing has been. It's common for filmmakers and marketing people to stretch the truth, but it isn't very common for them to outright lie in order to sell a film. And yes, what they did with the PBS post is an outright lie. I also think that this will need to go through an SPI, given that sockpuppetry was used during the last AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI is here. I have performed a search and other than the new review, there's nothing else out there. Whatever award it won to show up on the PBS aggregate post, it does not appear to have gained any actual coverage. There's a ton of press releases that the film's marketing crew has slathered over the internet but not really any actual coverage that'd show that this film would warrant an article. Given the dishonesty about the PBS post, I think that any award that this film receives should be considered suspect unless it has received coverage in independent and reliable sources (ie, no press releases or news articles that relies on press releases from the film's marketing department) in order to ensure that they haven't purchased a vanity award. I wouldn't consider the PBS aggregate a sign of the award's notability since this might have been a situation where they listed it because they were contacted by the marketing department, who claimed the film won an award. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It is more notable now. I'm not a puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katymall (talk • contribs) 05:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.