Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

Deletion discussions relating to filmmakers, directors and other non-actor film-related people should no longer be listed on this page. Please list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers instead.

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Film. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Film|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Film.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Film AfDs

Scan for Film Prods
Scan for Film template TfDs

Related deletion sorting

Film[edit]

Takeo Saeki[edit]

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

Not significant enough for standalone article. Possible merge/redirect to Ju-on but no sourced info to merge. Boleyn (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as WP:ATD. The sourcing here is severely lacking. For this one article, I am more willing to grant that sources could exist, given its roots in Asia. A merge would allow us to WP:PRESERVE some amount of history and content, in case sources are found at a later time. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex (2025 film)[edit]

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

Article on a planned film, apparently created by its director, hasn't actually begun filming yet, zero coverage so far outside of two posts on director's YouTube channel. Moved to draft three times, where it was correctly declined once as failing WP:NFILM. My speedy A7 was declined in favour of a third move back to draft, but article creator moved it back to main space minutes later, so here we are. Wikishovel (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. Wikishovel (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also keeps removing COI templates despite doing nothing to actually resolve it, although seems like they've stopped for now. Sadustu Tau (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Self-promotional and non-notable. Creator has already been blocked. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Furious[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Does not have sufficient independent significant coverage for a standalone article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Hong Kong. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kenji Tanigaki: There are only two sources which only covered the announcement of this film's production (one from Variety[1] and one from Comingsoon.net [2]). I did a search for Chinese sources, but nothing came up. I don't know Thai, so maybe some other Wikipedians can perform additional searches for Thai sources to see if there are something I have missed. Regardless, the film is unlikely to be unnotable in the future, given the cast and the high budget invested by Edko Films, and it would be mentioned in some other articles (eg, the director and the actors' biography). So a redirect to the director, Kenji Tanigaki, would be more ideal at the moment. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 08:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Immortal Ashwatthama[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Upcoming film that has, of course, not received sufficient coverage for a standalone article. I can’t figure a best WP:ATD-R and Draftify would not be a bad idea. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Entertainment, and India. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with only one has a mention of talks with actor Allu Arjun but nothing has been confirmed. The film is not even in post production which fails to warrant a page as of now. This is a case of way WP:TOOSOON. I would not even consider to Draftify this page until it reaches post production. Page also fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Below Zero (1930 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. I could not find any significant coverage, though coverage in databases and WP:ROTM sources exists, but this does not help in meeting WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. The article does not meet any other NFILM criteria. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in many books, including [3], [4], and [5] DonaldD23 talk to me 23:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Donald23's sources. I strongly suspect you can dig into the Internet Archive for contemporary reviews, also. Honestly, I can't imagine any Laurel and Hardy film failing inclusion standards. Lubal (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage mentioned by Donaldd23 + some I added to the page (see for yourself) + more existing.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters[edit]

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

There are two big issues: Firstly, there's no citations outside of the one character that already has his own page, Newt Scamander. Secondly, this is for a three-film series - so not really a huge body of work - and, outside of the main four or five characters, there's one or two sentences for each person. Worse, the articles on the films have cast lists with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters, so it's redundant as well (The main characters' longer bits just being the plot summaries of the films). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:CSC #2, no argument for deletion made that cannot be remedied by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it rises to the level of notability where it can ever be sourced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These articles a little weird if we are trying to go by consistency. List of Harry Potter characters exists, but that is for characters who appeared in any of the books, which a lot of these do not and are not mentioned in that article. There is also List of Fantastic Beasts cast members which compliments List of Harry Potter cast members (a featured list.) Maybe it might be beneficial to merge the two Fantastic Beasts articles since the cast members one is well sourced, while this one is not. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to Fantastic Beasts having multiple articles, but the number of secondary articles on it seems vastly out of line with the material. Fantastic Beasts (film series) and the three film articles are sensible enough, Newt Scamander seems to have enough independant coverage - and crossover content between various things - that it's justified, but when you get to a list of the characters, and a cast list as a table without any context, it feels both redundant and weird. It feels like the cast list should be at the end of the article on the series, and the character list... well... it's really hard to see why that exists at all if this article the most we can come up with, and I don't think anything in it isn't in the cast sections of the articles for each film; indeed, I think those may be doing a slightly better job.

Harry Potter isn't a good guide to what should exist here, as that was a much, much bigger phenomenon than its spinoff, and, as a book series, had both a lot more characters than could plausibly fit in a plot summary and a lot more development and recurrence of minor characters (and Rowling talked a lot more about the development of those characters in interviews). Films just don't have the depth of books, and, if there's material about secondary characters that got left out of the films, as far as I'm aware, it's not reported on.

And, of course, Harry Potter in particular had a lot more secondary sources that went into detail about every character; Fantastic Beasts doesn't have anything like that depth of coverage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel there has to be a merge target as an WP:ATD for this. The one suggested above seems less intuitive than if the main article had a characters section. Perhaps each individual film should have a characters section? Conyo14 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They already do, is the thing, with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters. And it covers pretty much all the information on this page except for the main cast, who are redundant to the plot summary. If I've missed that one doesn't appear, by all means copy it over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 13:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Space Marines (film)[edit]

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

The film is not notable in the sense that there are not multiple reliable sources having significant coverage about this topic. There is a review by The Washington Post here but nothing beyond that that I could find. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging already-involved editors Govvy, Atlantic306, and Mushy Yank. I had proposed deletion but Mushy Yank contested it on account of the review by The Washington Post. Started this AfD to see this through fully. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just deproDed the page. Meets requirement for notability with significant coverage in reliable sources including a full review in The Washington Post. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said you removed it because it had a review in The Washington Post? That does not equate plurality of reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A review in the WP is enough to DEPROD a page, yes. But please read the comment I left on TP in the OldProd template. And also read the sources on the page. I've added various references. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Washington Post review was syndicated nationally; here's the review in The Newport News Daily Press. There are a lot more examples on newspapers.com. Toughpigs (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thanks, that's a good source. Any others you can share? I can go ahead and update the article with them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oh, I misunderstood. Doesn't the same coverage being repeated elsewhere still count as only one source? Are there more sources that are different from the WaPo review? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, WP:N says, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So we still only have Washington Post as the only reliable source covering this film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we still only have Washington Post as the only reliable source covering this film. No. Just read the page. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you think these sources in the Wikipedia article are significant coverage. Here is a breakdown:
Regarding Off the Page, the film is only mentioned in passing, so it's not significant coverage.

For the other items, these are capsule reviews and not sufficient coverage. WP:NF says, "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides..." Such guides have many films with only one sentence about them.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added some coverage with critical commentary, then. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, borderline notable... I think it is fair to presume that if the WaPo wrote a full review of this 1996 film that additional coverage which would meet GNG exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Added some. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the sources added is for Space Cowboys and not this film, two others are what? Databases with no degree of help to the article, so that leaves one review which I couldn't read because of the paywall. And that really is only one source left in the article. It's hardly signov, my gut still tells me it's a delete unless there was something more. Govvy (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not on Space Cowboys. The Snippet is misleading. Read what I've quoted, it's about this film! (If you can't access the full page: Was Space Cowboys written by Moreland, and is it with Wirth?) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the Washington Post is all I can find for reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has a "critic" review from rec.arts.movies, which is being rather generous [6] calling that a "critical review". I don't know if this is related [7], but most things that come up are about the Warhammer series. I don't see enough for film notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that film is unrelated. Added some coverage though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Besides the Washington Post and Psychotronic Video reviews, there are also reviews in the Malay Mail, the Hawaii Tribune-Herald and the Hickory Daily Record. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Movieguide Epiphany Prize for Most Inspiring Movie[edit]

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

Weird partisan award that reviews movies "from a christian perspective" with no coverage aside from that which it generates itself. BrigadierG (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. I came up with no coverage beyond the cursory.
Weak keep per RunningTiger123 and a few column inches in the LA Times in 1996. JSFarman (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. SL93 (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the awards are covered in industry publications such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline. Based on practices for other awards, once the overall awards are established as notable and have run for a few years, individual category lists such as this are acceptable (especially since the listed films mostly have their own articles, fulfilling a navigational purpose as well). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As others have noted, there's some press coverage, if not much. But even if there weren't, notability isn't proportional to coverage. The moral implications of the culture is a huge issue, and this award is the biggest thing I know of that deals with that. It's true that it's partisan, and that's a reason to provide a counterpoint, but it isn't a reason to suppress information about it. That would be far more partisan than the award is. - Burner89751654 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from the main article and has reliable sources coverage such as Variety, Deadline, and Hollywood Reporter, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDFA DocLab Competition for Digital Storytelling 2023[edit]

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

Yearly entry for a specific section of a film festival. None of the competing entries is notable. WP:NOTDATABASE. Broc (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page as its content is substantially the same, just for another year:

--Broc (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no sign of meaningful coverage; this is a relatively trivial competition in the festival, RSs only mention it in passing (example, example), and even IMDb with its broad inclusion criteria doesn't list the winner. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (film series)[edit]

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

The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and Romania. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Energising India[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not clear how WP:NFILM has been met JMWt (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Germany. JMWt (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any relevant coverage BrigadierG (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jyoti_Sarup#Director: listed there. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, I found nothing that makes this film notable. The film totally fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. There is no in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, and no critical reviews have been found. GrabUp - Talk 15:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom fails WP:GNG. I do not find any coverage or reviews on the documentary. RangersRus (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amader Choto Russel Shona[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable Source. - AlbeitPK (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sheikh_Russel#In_Popular_Culture: as alternative to deletion if coverage seems insufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaadi Impossible[edit]

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Telefilms: (Page for director is a Redirect) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Lane (DC Extended Universe)[edit]

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

I try again. Lois Lane is indeed an encyclopedic character but its counterpart from the DC Extended Universe seems to be irrelevant in a real world perspective. First thing first, this article does not meet the requirements of WP:NFILMCHAR: the character has appeared in three films, but not in a lead or titular capacity. Also, this iteration of Lois Lane does not have an extensive coverage. Redjedi23 (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We meet again, old friend.

As discussed last time, I wouldn't do a straight up delete, but would merge to either Lois Lane in other media or Characters of the DC Extended Universe if it's decided this page isn't worth being a stand-alone article. WuTang94 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Lois Lane in film and merge in the film content from Lois Lane in other media (as we do with our separate articles for, e.g., Spider-Man in film and Spider-Man in other media). There is sufficient DCEU-specific content on casting and character development within the franchise that this content should not be erased from the encyclopedia altogether. BD2412 T 19:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a split article from the Lois Lane in other media page and is similar to other split articles like Lois Lane (Superman & Lois) and Lois Lane (Smallville). The character has notability and media coverage more than other DC Extended Universe characters. Most people already know who she is from other films and television she appeared in. Rootone (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm imo Lois Lane (Superman & Lois) is not encyclopedic too. These information could be easily merged into another page (Lois Lane in film? Lois Lane in other media? Characters of the DC Extended Universe/of Superman & Lois?). She doesn't have an extensive coverage like, I don't know, Superman. Lois Lane (Smallville) is different anyway. Redjedi23 (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Spoon of Chocolate[edit]

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

Article about a not-yet-released film, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of enough production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films.
There's a common, but erroneous, belief that the WP:NFF section of WP:NFILM grants an automatic presumption of notability to every film that enters the production pipeline the moment shooting has started on it, even if that's basically the only notability claim the article contains -- but what NFF actually says is that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."
That is, "notable once principal photography has commenced" is a special criterion that applies to very high-profile films (such as Marvel or Star Wars films) that get such a depth and range production coverage that they'd probably still remain notable even if they failed to ever see release at all, while the bar that most normal films actually have to clear is that they've actually been released and reviewed by film critics.
But what we have for referencing here is one casting announcement and one glancing mention that the idea was in the works 12 years ago in an article about the director's prior film, which isn't nearly enough coverage to get the NFF treatment.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when the film finally sees release, but simply single-sourcing that production has commenced isn't "inherently" notable in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are 2 reliable sources that are not blogs discussing the film, The New York Times a newspaper company that exists since 1851 and The Hollywood Reporter, the biggest Hollywood trade in the business. So no the sources aren't unreliable, so your argument about deleting the page are invalid.KingArti (talk) KingArti (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also I provided a 3rd source that filming is actually happening as we speak. KingArti (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, the base notability bar for films is not that production has started; the base notability bar for films is that they have been released to the public and garnered reviews from film critics. And as I noted above, one of the two footnotes that were in this article at the time of nomination was not coverage about this film, but a glancing mention that the basic idea for this film was in the germination stage 12 years ago in an article about a different film, and thus it does not support the notability of this film at all.

The potential exception to the regular notability criteria is for films that can be shown as special cases of much greater notability than the norm, and just two hits of coverage is not enough to get there. Nobody said anything about the sources being unreliable — what I said was that there isn't enough sourcing to exempt this from the normal notability criteria for films. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Existing significant coverage in reliable sources includes the articles quoted in the article + (1st page of a one-click search.....) :

etc. So this meets the general requirements for notability imv.

A redirect to RZA#Filmmaking should have obviously been considered anyway......-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable, it is stating that they do not show a notable production period, i.e. since April 2024. All sources published before that do not contribute to satisfying WP:NFF as that was development or pre-production. The question comes down to this: If the film were cancelled tomorrow and never released, what can we say about the production of the film? I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. I'm fairly inclusionist, and I consider this one pretty close, but I think we could easily wait for slightly more coverage. Draftification is a better WP:ATD option than a redirect in my opinion because I feel it's easier to add new content there than getting lost in a redirect history. KingArti is also very active in Draft space, so I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion. -2pou (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable? OK. Good, then, let's keep this. Sources published before filming started are absolutely as relevant as those published recently! I don't understand what notable production period means. A film is judged notable or not. And sources back the claim that it is notable, or not. Time has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia happens to consider films whose filming started are more likely to be notable (or simply to exist at all as films) than those whose filming hasn't started. It makes sense but that does not invalidate sources from before the moment filming started, when filming does indeed start!!! I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. Do you consider the cast, genre, premise and production history of a film non-significant? I don't. Finally, I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion, maybe not, but you feel it's a risk worth mentioning here, though. I concur it's as easy for users who know the draft exists, to edit it, as it is to edit a section dedicated to the film, in the article about the director. But not for newcomers. And if facilitating new contributions concerning the film is a concern (and a fair one, in terms of Wikipedia's raison d'être), a Keep seems the best solution (not to mention the possibility of good faith creations of articles such as OSoC (upcoming film) or OSoC (RZA), etc.). Anyway, thank you for your input, and sorry if this was too long and inappropriate. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The permanent notability of a film that's still in the production pipeline is not established by showing a couple of hits of casting or production announcements — every single film that ever entered the production pipeline at all can always pass that test. Even films that never get completed or released at all, in order to actually pass the primary notability criteria for films, would pass that loose a reading of NFF and have to be kept forever — so no film would ever be subject to the main notability criteria for films at all if just a small handful of production coverage were enough to bump a film from "regular criteria" to "NFF criteria", because no film that enters production ever fails to generate that small handful.

So "the production is itself notable" is not passed by every film that can show one or two hits of casting or production coverage — it's passed only by films that get Marvel/Star Wars volumes of production coverage, to the point that even if the film were to collapse and never come out at all it would probably still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. The Batgirl remake that got shelved last year is an example of that level of production coverage; most films which just get run of the mill coverage are not. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: With all due respect, but if the standard is that only major blockbusters like Disney films can have articles retained, then approximately 80% of current unreleased film articles would need to be deleted. This would be quite confusing for editors, as it raises questions about where exactly the notability bar should be set. Do only Marvel films count as notable? What about DC? What about blockbusters of other big companies like Paramount's Mission Impossible 8 or Universal's Gladiator 2? And what about art house films? Should all of them not be allowed to create independent articles until they are released? These types of questions could go on endlessly. The thing is, not all editors have the same keen judgment when it comes to determining notability. In reality, it can be a highly subjective assessment that varies from person to person. The original purpose of NFF was to provide clear criteria to help prevent these kinds of disputes. As long as a film has checked the boxes, it should be allowed to create an article. I'm concerned that adopting such a restrictive notability standard through this AFD could set a bad precedent. It could lead to many controversial deletions of articles about major film projects, simply because some editors don't find the coverage "significant" enough. Therefore, I think as long as an article meets NFF, it should be retained. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I beg to differ, as I believe the nominator has misinterpreted WP:NFF. The nominator cited the third paragraph in NFF to argue that despite a film having begun shooting, with confirmations from reliable sources, the article should not exist. But if we review the guideline carefully, it states that a film (although it has begun filming) should generally not have an article unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. So this is where the reliable sources' confirmation mentioned in the first paragraph comes into play. If films have been confirmed by sources as having begun filming, it can be considered as fulfilling the notability guidelines (in other words, GNG), and be allowed to have its own article. The sentence the nominator cited is more likely to refer to a film that has already begun filming, but the production isn't covered by any independent, secondary, reliable sources - in such cases, the film should not have an article as it fails the notability guidelines. There could be various reasons for this, such as the film not being notable enough for secondary sources to cover, or the production companies concealing details for marketing purposes. Regardless of the reason, these films no doubt fail to meet the requirements of NFF and should not have an article, even though the commencement of filming has already begun in reality and may be supported by primary sources. As long as a film has been confirmed by multiple RS, having completed pre-production and moved on to shooting, it should be allowed to have an independent article as it has ticked the boxes. I understand the concern about Wikipedia being flooded with pre-mature film articles poorly sourced with media articles that only have passing mentions merely about a film's commencement of filming. But in this case, the film has numerous secondary sources providing SIGCOV on the production details and filming plans (as provided by Mushy Yank), as well as additional coverage about the film being conceptualized by RZA years ago. This makes it not one of the marginal cases we were concerned about, and it is safe to cite WP:NFF exactly as the reason why the film should be kept.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as any film that ever enters production without being able to show at least one or two hits of coverage — casting annoucements can always be found somewhere, at least one hit of verification that photography has started can always be found somewhere, for every single film that has ever entered the production pipeline regardless of whether it ever came out the other end as a finished film or not. So if that were the distinction between regular criteria and NFF, then every film that entered the production pipeline would always pass NFF, and no film would ever actually have to meet the regular criteria at all anymore.

So the test is not passed by a film showing a handful of production coverage, and requires a film to show significantly more production coverage than films in production are routinely expected to get — as in, so much coverage that even if the film collapsed and never came out it would probably remain permanently notable as a failed production anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: That is not necessarily true. A recent example that comes to mind is the Hong Kong film The Dream, the Bubble and the Shadow, for which a trailer was presented at an exhibition of the production company with a projected release date of 2024, so it is most likely that the film has already finished production (if not, at least filming has already started), but every detail was concealed for marketing purposes, not even with the main cast revealed. So in this case, the film should not have its article until it has been officially released. (Despite there being numerous media articles reporting on the trailer, and some primary sources, like the filming plans of the production companies may support the fact that the film has already begun shooting) Also, I have actually voted Redirect in another AFD of an article written by the same editor, because in that case, the film literally only has two sources merely covering the commencement of filming and the composition of cast and crew. In that case, I think it does not demonstrate enough notability. But in this case, from the sources Mushy Yank presented, there are actually quite a lot more coverage on the production other than the original announcement. For instance, RZA has conceptualized the project 13 years ago, covered by Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly and Black Film and TV, and there have been additional casting choices recently in May, see Deadline Hollywood and The Hindu. I really share your thoughts on barring pre-mature film articles from flooding Wikipedia, but I have reservations on whether this is really a marginal case that we were concerned about. It can still be filed for deletion if the film was scrapped, it is never too late. I agree to disagree, but I think there is enough to fulfill NFF at this point and this article should be kept. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Ki Chandni[edit]

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this and this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Telefilms: is mentioned there. There are currently SO MANY Pakistan-related ongoing Afds including a lot concerning films or series that I would like to suggest redirects for all them, including potential future ones. I am therefore inviting future nominators of such pages to consider redirects, in the future, for the pages they find non-notable, without initiating AfDs, whenever they think redirects could be appropriate and if that seems possible. It is almost impossible for interested and willing users to verify and improve all of them at the same time, and even to take the time to check sources and content in order to !vote. This might become an issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, I don't mind redirects, but the problem is the page keeps getting recreated. I have seen that if we revert and redirect, it turns into an edit war. It's better to just delete the page. If the subject is notable, someone can always create a draft and submit it for the main namespace. I know redirects are "cheap," but they're WP:COSTLY too and lead to unwanted edit wars. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It is as easy to ask for page protection of the Redirected page through the rpp script as it is to XFd/PROD/tag a page for notability via TWINKLE, if potential (or real) edit war is really you concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Mammolotti[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE. No in-depth coverage. Can't find anything about him online except an IMDB page. Clear friend a ^💬 21:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Various awards and nominations for Best cinematographer. (https://www.inventaunfilm.it/sei-premi-in-cerca-d-autore-2021-autore-dell-anno-gianni-mammolotti/articoli16539 ; http://www.ilquotidiano.it/articoli/2005/09/25/44313/assegnati-i-4-esposimetri-doro-per-il-premio-gianni-di-venanzo ; https://www.daviddidonatello.it/motore-di-ricerca/cercavincitori2.php?idsoggetto=1679&vin= ; https://www.sherlockmagazine.it/index.php/2942/l-aquila-una-citta-in-nero) May meet WP:ANYBIO. ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times") -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) (edited as there is only 1 Donatello nomination I can verify not more, although the Italian WP mentions 2 (which is not >2) but he has received other awards)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malhun Hatun (fictional character)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Having hard time to find any valuable source per WP:BEFORE + character has no reception at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the film. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I searched Malhun Hatun without "fictional character" and went to Google News and found tons of sources about her. Perhaps you should tag it for notability for a week or two weeks, then nominate it for deletion or maybe an assessment, although that's just my opinion. Kazama16 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you find sources that can be used to establish notability, please identify them in this discussion. General comments that sources exist aren't taken seriously.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jokaru[edit]

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

All the sources doesn't meet our requirement for WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. For good, a redirect to the "List of 2023 films in Maldives" or related can help. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Asia, and Maldives. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage seems to show it’s notable..... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV requires an article being significantly covered in reliable sources WP:RS. I still don't find that in the article as the sources aren't reliable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to consider The Press unreliable and it's a review. Muniavas has various articles about the film (https://www.muniavas.com/46563) (definitely not great journalism, but I see no reason to consider it plainly "unreliable").

The following inclusionary criteria might also be met; "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio". Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited." But if everyone thinks it does not apply and sources are insufficient, sure, redirect to List of Maldivian films of 2023#Feature film should indeed be considered. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Chris Gore (via WP:PROD on 13 September 2023)

Categories[edit]

Templates[edit]