Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Ends with Us controversy

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The result was withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 15:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It Ends with Us controversy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Blatant POV fork. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 14:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Film. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 14:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anything I would argue that this is the opposite of a POV fork, as it's trying to bring information together, not separate it. I noticed on both Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively's page, people were saying the controversy sections were getting too long and specific for those individual pages. Hence, why I started this one about the controversy itself.

This controversy is very well-covered in the media. I would find it hard to argue that it's not notable. And it continues on - I believe there was just a hearing abut a potential gag order that as far as I can tell has not been added to the article, in addition to a court date set for 2026. So, this article will probably just continue to grow as more details emerge and more court proceedings happen.

It doesn't make sense to cover it in this level of depth on either Lively or Baldoni's page. It also, to me at least, doesn't make sense to cover on the movie's page because this has become so more than the movie itself and involves other elements outside of the movie (like the article in The New York Times, or the alleged "Nicepool" depiction, etc.) Additionally, if this were to move to the movie page, it feels like it would take up so much of it that it would overshadow the actual details of the actual movie (e.g. production, plot, marketing, etc.)

Given the immense amounts of sustained coverage, I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be worth covering, but I don't know where else would make more sense than in a standalone article. Do you have specific ideas for where else you think this information would belong if not in a standalone article?

Additionally, if you think the article tone doesn't use a neutral enough POV, of course everyone is more than welcome (and invited!) to edit the article and refine language and tone. Wikipedian339 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian339, makes sense. I'm generally wary of "Controversy" and "Criticism" sections and articles as they tend to be blatant NPOV violations. I'll withdraw this nomination. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 15:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons Wikipedian339 stated above. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:21, 5 February 2025 (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.