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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Film. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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

List of movie theater chains

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

Huge unsourced, unverifiable list of mostly non-notable cinemas/movie theatres. Tagged for lack of secondary sources for 12 years. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY as "a Simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." AusLondonder (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lists. AusLondonder (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 97 references. Category:Cinema and movie theatre chains by country shows plenty of valid entries for this list. Just needs a lot of pruning to remove anything without its own article or a reference. Dream Focus 07:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each reference is for each list entry, many non-notable. Where are the references discussing the subject as a group? AusLondonder (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the second paragraph at WP:NLIST: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

Not sure why some get confused by this. Dream Focus 15:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a reasonably notable topic for a list, that can be improved; added global/regional coverage (EL; LS). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Minions: The Rise of Gru

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

A short-lived Lego toy line created to promote a film and discontinued after its release is likely not notable for its own article (note: the toy line lasted two years because the film was delayed for two years due to COVID, not because they continued to sell toys long after the film came out due to its popularity). In fact, probably a bunch of Category:Lego themes need to go, but that just opens a can of worms. We don't need an article for every Lego product line, and especially not "one-off" ones. This article doesn't seem to contain anything significant other than toy specifications that read like WP:NOTCATALOG and a single review. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Toys. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lego themes: There isn't enough here to support a standalone article - Almost all of the sources are catalog entries, press releases, or fan blogs. The sources that appear more reliable don't do anything to support WP:GNG because they're either not about the line itself (Variety, SyFy, Mashable) or are listicles (Chicago Tribune, New York Times). I could not turn up any independent reliable coverage on my own. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels International Festival of Eroticism

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

Fails WP:GNG due to not having any WP:SIGCOV. Only took placed for two years and doesn't not meet notability Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Events, Sexuality and gender, and Belgium. Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found coverage in French: https://www.moustique.be/tendances/2019/03/19/ete-au-festival-de-erotisme-de-bruxelles-176446 ; https://www.dhnet.be/actu/sexualite/2014/03/06/on-etait-au-salon-de-lerotisme-video-YUCJW544NBCEPKHBAJJMCGKTIY/ and so on (and apparently sources exist in German and Dutch); if that is not enough, redirect to List_of_festivals_in_Europe#Belgium or to another target. Needs cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FilmFreeway

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

I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV. Hardly meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. AmericanY (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, Canada, and United States of America. AmericanY (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources is presented on the page. So this meets the general requirements for notability. Also "Making Media:Foundations of Sound and Image Production" (2022), p. 300, for example -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three Men and a Baby (franchise)

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

Similar to Rosemary's Baby discussion as a franchise here, I can not find much to apply WP:SIGCOV which addresses the topic of this series in detail (see WP:SIGCOV "addresses the topic directly and in detail") as well as MOS:FILMSERIES which suggests "an article would also benefit from coverage that discusses the series as a whole, or at least commentators who compare later films to their predecessors".

While there has been a lot of effort and work to put this together sources within the article are either about individual topics (Rotten Tomatoes, MetaCritic, the Numbers, etc.). Of the few that discuss the films with a bit more depth, they primarily discuss the first film, with no oversight or commentary on it as a series outside a mention of a sequel.

On my own research to try to expand the article, it was similarly limited to usually a single sentence with no signifigant coverage. Overviews just state the first film received sequels and remakes, with no commentary on the topic. This is seen in articles like Empire here or Yahoo! Life here While I looked through pages of google books to find information on it as a franchise or series, it had similar results (either in relation to the careers of Nimoy, in context of Hollywood remaking American films here (University of California Press), or the first film for various historical reasons (place in 80s cinema, etc.) here (Rutgers University Press), here), and again, even these were very brief mentions of even just the first film. Placing the films name into searches into the Wikipedia Library or Google Scholar predominantly have articles about Hollywood Remaking the first film as a franchise here, or others going into detail on the how the first film treats masculinity in film, and other gender studies topics.

Content within the article and on my own predominantly discusses the first film either in the context of popular hollywood films of the 1980s, the career of the actors and director Leonard Nimoy (with only brief mentions to the series),

- Den of Geek here, while it seems less like a news blurb and a proper retrospective, is mostly comparing the French-language film that inspired it, and the original hit film. There isn't any information/content/reception about the follow-ups or the film as a franchise/series.
Other sources that go more into detail such as Eighties Kids appears to not pass WP:REPUTABLE ("a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"), it appears to be an extension of a popular Facebook nostalgia page.

The article in its current state might even fail MOS:FILMSERIES which states "A film series article should only be created when the series encompasses at least three films [...] Exceptions may include franchise articles where films are one of several notable and interrelated components (TV series, comics, etc.)." The "Baby Daddy" series does not appear to be related to the films in any coroporate way with the article only stating it was "inspired" by it. The article on the series itself makes no mention of its relation to the films or series. On trying to find a connection myself, I only found the LA Times calling the series derivative of the film, not connected (LA Times: here. The State Journal-Reigster here) Seemingly not different than lets say My Baby's Daddy, which also seems unrelated. here. (Daily Collegian). Or from the article itself withBitch Media which goes into detail comparing to the two works, but makes no suggestion on any canonical or business acumen that they are realted in-universe or through ownership of the brand.

The rest of the article generally rehashes the history of the plots of individual works with critical citations going only towards the film themselves MOS:FILMSERIES suggests above. Without comparisons. This may fall under WP:UNDUE as we have a lack of "depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space."

Please note, that voting keep or delete on this is not in relation to whether a series exists or not, its whether there is enough discussion from the sources in question to currently make this an article that follows our guidelines. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A little bit long of a rationale, but just on a cursory glance this definitely isn't a franchise in any sense, and this is the first time I've heard of Baby Daddy being related to it in any way. This is simply walled-garden WP:MADEUP and there's no sign that the Disney+ movie is in any process of filming. Nate • (chatter) 18:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two films and one (seemingly unrelated) TV series are not a franchise. Even with a reboot planned, WP:CRYSTAL still applies. This "franchise" article also does not abide by MOS:FILMSERIES, as the nom notes. One TV series does not seem enough to make this exception as detailed in the MOS, and there are no sources of in-depth coverage independent of the individual films or series themselves, failing notability of this supposed franchise. The amount of poorly sourced and questionale statements in the lead alone is a cause for concern about the lack of coverage and evidence supporting what this article is trying to get across. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a WP:SETINDEX. Discuss renaming and cuts on TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Trailblazer101: No sources identify this as a "franchise", making it a case of WP:SYNTH from the cited sources. Redirect seems pointless because this is an unlikely search term, if entered as the title. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Mushy Yank's argument -- move to an Index Article would be more constructive, than outright deletion. As for the Baby Daddy connections to Three Men and a Baby movies, see here, here and here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: Out of curiosity, what is directly in those sources you would like us to find? Both state similarities, while the TVOvermind article seems to note the author of the article has not even watched the first film in its entirety... I appreciate your diligence, I just don't know what is the connection anyone should make or what you are implying. [Update: Per your addition here, the La Times link also just seems to call the film a rip-off of the first film ("an unapologetic rip-off of “Three Men and a Baby,”") and no other discussion on a connection. I apologize, but I do not see what anyone involved with the discussion is supposed to pull from those articles.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Also, if Baby Daddy did somehow become a part of this 'franchise' you invented (as the article creator)...then its credits would not have only included a 'based on' credit for Coline Serreau, but the original American writers Jim Cruickshank and James Orr would have also not only gotten the same credits, but likely executive producer credits and profit participation. The Hollywood unions are very strict on making sure any idea based on another work gets those originators credits, and the ideas for both the films and the series are very different, especially in headcount. The only two things they share are literally having "Baby" in the title and common library ownership. That's it. Nate • (chatter) 01:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources so far don't do a good job of establishing Baby Daddy as being part of the same franchise, only as having a similar premise. The remake hasn't entered production, and the last update was in 2022. We're not really hitting MOS:FILMSERIES, and I don't think a set index makes sense for two extant works. hinnk (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I count three films with the French original, and there are several other remakes of it. No idea why we would need more "oversight or commentary" for what is essentially another list. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's one thing if the article is about the concept as a whole, but this is clearly bent towards Amerocentrism regarding only the films under Disney ownership, which is a major issue with these 'franchise' articles that only grudingly mention their international origination so they can put forth unflitered studio-stan cruft. Nate • (chatter) 21:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs the Terrible Lizards

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

Non-notable film. Cited sources only talk about the extinction of dinosaurs without mentioning the film at all. Notability is clearly lacking and fails WP:NFILM. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of films featuring dinosaurs. I find it mentioned here and there, but no significant coverage, and it was only 10 minutes long. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Berry, Mark F. (2002). The Dinosaur Filmography. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 84–86. ISBN 978-0-7864-2453-5. Retrieved 2024-10-08 – via Internet Archive.
  The book review the film on pages 84–86 and mentions the film on pages 9, 10, 11, and 357. The book notes: "Commentary: Dinosaurs ... The Terrible Lizards is an unexpectedly polished-looking film, especially in light of the limited resources from which Wah Chang created it. The animation is skilled and the puppets are excellent, without exception. Chang managed to save some time and effort by fashioning more than one head which could be fitted onto the same body, thus converting a Triceratops into a Styracosaurus, then into a Monoclonius, then into a Chasmosaurus, and so on. This tactic helped allow him to parade a small smorgasbord of saurians across the screen, with no fewer than 13 different prehistoric species glimpsed or featured during the film's ten-minute run time. Throughout the film, Chang adds little touches that are unusual for an "educational" film, and that reflect the care he always brought to his art."
2. Thrash, Sarah (June–July 1987). "Dinosaurs: The Terrible Lizards (rev.)". School Library Journal. Vol. 33, no. 10. p. 64. EBSCOhost 5715370.
  The review notes: "Dinosaurs: The Terrible Lizards (rev.). 16mm or videocassette. color. 91⁄2 min. Aims. 1986. #9833. 16mm: $250; videocassette: $190 (Rental: $50). Preview avail. Gr 1–8—This lively, animated film shows the evolution of dinosaurs, iden tifies major types, and describes their physical characteristics. The terms are explained and defined to make them more understandable to younger students, and names are superimposed on the screen. In explaining the environment during the time of the dinosaurs, however, not enough information is included on the changes that took place on the earth, and only one theory about the ending of this period is provided. The organization of the material is clear. The only inconsistency is the inclusion of a fully evolved man and woman that are irrelevant to the time period of the film. An interesting film, useful for individual or group viewing."
3. Bykerk-Kauffman, Ann (May 1995). "Dinosaurs, the Terrible Lizards (revised)". Journal of Geological Education. 43: 272. doi:10.5408/0022-1368-43.3.266. ISSN 0022-1368. EBSCOhost 508557355.
  The abstract notes: "Dinosaurs, the Terrible Lizards (Revised) ($50), from AIMS Media, is a 10-minute videotape that features the locations of dinosaur finds on a world map; gives a very brief synopsis of the evolution of life on Earth; and focuses on showing, naming, and describing various types of dinosaur. This program is intended for children aged 7–13 years, is very appealing to children, but contains little scientific information."
4. Garrison, Jim (Winter 1971). "Dinosaurs ... the Terrible Lizards". Cinefantastique. Vol. 1, no. 2. p. 32. Retrieved 2024-10-08 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "Although Dinosaurs...the Terrible Lizards will probably be viewed by only a few fortunate students in the junior high level science classes in the Los Angeles City Schools, its realistic cinematic monsters are as lifelike as any used in a major studio production. Largely a natural history documentary, the film was produced in color by Wah Chang, of "Projects Unlimited" fame, and animated by Douglas Beswick for the Los Angeles Board of Education, and brings to life most of the dinosaurs of the past. There are approximately twelve to fifteen different types of these beasts in the film, including Brontosaurus, Ceolophysis, Stegosaurus, Triceratops, Monoclonius, and the Tyranosaurus Rex. Narrated in laymen's terms, the film explains the general lifecycle of dinosaurs and why they became extinct. It also describes through diagrams how large some dinosaurs were: one diagram compares a Brontosaurus to an ordinary one-story house."
5. This Film & Video Review Index notes:
  DINOSAURS: THE TERRIBLE LIZARDS [MP]
  Encyclopedia Britannica 1977 24M $320P $25R Order #3504 Previews 7:3 Nov78 p14 Michele Smith
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dinosaurs: The Terrible Lizards to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Cunard's sources above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voltes V: Legacy – The Cinematic Experience

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

The film is basically a recap of Voltes V: Legacy. there is an upcoming re-release with new Japanese dubbing and new "never before seen scenes" but there is a lack of information for a separate article. Would be better to have this as a redirect to the source material. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Japan, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: reviews here https://www.philstar.com/movies/2023/04/20/2260360/voltes-v-legacy-review-finally-filipino-movie-could-rival-marvel-dc and https://www.pep.ph/news/local/172863/voltes-v-legacy-the-cinematic-experience-review-a717-20230422?s=fjda47timjo28plrksh5mk98a9 at least; and the rest of the coverage shows this is notable enough for a standalone page (not to mention notable cast, crew). So very opposed to deletion -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is not really a point, I am far aware that the production involves actors in one of the two biggest television networks in the Philippines. The issue is if this movie is substantial enough from Voltes V: Legacy - the film is a recap of 15 of 90 episodes of the live action source material. The upcoming Japan release does promise to have "never before seen scenes" and new dubbing. At best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Does The Cinematic Experience really need a standalone article when it could be just a footnote at Voltes V: Legacy? And since its a recap film, its production/conceptualization background is literally the same as the TV show.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is about this film not the series. A standalone page is acceptable for subjects considered notable. This one can be presumed notable according to the general guidelines, so that there is no reason to redirect and merge it, that's all. Consider it a detailed article, Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reviews identified by Mushy Yank. If it's been reviewed in reliable sources then it is independently notable from the series. There are similar types of film such as Battlestar Galactica, and Duel (Steven Spielberg) which were originally shown on US TV but received international cinema distribution, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is no reviewed mentioned. The argument is these are compilation films. The first Haikyu!! movies which are compilation films for example don't have standalone articles, but Haikyu!! The Dumpster Battle which follows season 4 does. The production process for The Cinematic Experience is literally the same as the first 15 episodes of the TV series plus some recuts. The article as its stands is just an unnecessary and redundant. The series was produced prior to the film, although the film was released first.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 reviews mentioned, and that was by me. We understand it is a compilation film, but it can be considered a notable one. If you think other film articles can be created and have reliable sources, feel free. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was covered by various independent sources Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are users ignoring how this film are a direct derivative of the first episodes of Voltes V: Legacy? Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, users are not. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article is well sourced, and the article of Voltes V: Legacy is already large enough, for a separate article like this to exist.Hotwiki (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aside from the review in The Philippine Star and PEP.ph, the movie shares the same development/production process as the film (the film is the repackaged episodes), shares the same cast. There is not much "unique information" about the films. Everything about Voltes V: Legacy the series applies to the film except the episode list and the cast members who appeared past episode 15. Any unique information of The Ciniematic Experience and the upcoming Japanese version can be briefly mentioned on Voltes V: Legacy's Theatrical cut version. We do not need an article about a compilation film based on WP:ROUTINE coverage which can be adequately mentioned on a subsection. The TV series is clearly the "main IP" here despite the film being released earlier. Remember the produced the whole series in full and not shoot is as they go like Philippine typical soap dramas areHariboneagle927 (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the article was created trough AfC and accepted by User:SafariScribe (courtesy notification).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFILM as a standalone article with sources presented above, despite being a recap of the V5L series. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty-James

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

Fails WP:GNG, no sources cited, tagged for notability since 2017 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Film. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rumble Fish (novel) - Not seeing any reason for this to be split out into a separate article, but its a useful search term, so should be redirected to the novel's article. Rorshacma (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. No sources cited, but there is a valid redirect target where this can be mentioned. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahirbhoomi

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

Fails WP:NF, and does not meet GNG either. Htanaungg (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Htanaungg (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Htanaungg, Make sure you check the article one more time before taking any action. Thank you. Msnlalithprem (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- *Keep WP:BASIC, i reviewed the reliable non-English news sources. Asianet News 1, NTV (India)2, CNN-News18 3, Namasthe Telangana 4
AgniPuthra (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NF, and GNG reliable multiple published news sources 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.

Msnlalithprem (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I always prefer articles with two reliable reviews, but Dilse, Sakhi (2023 film), Kaalam Raasina Kathalu etc exist. DareshMohan (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to the references mentioned in the article.

Induvadhone (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World Without US

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

No signs of significant coverage. The article currently references sources such as IMDb, Amazon, and the film's website that are either non-independent or fail to convey notability. A quick search fails to turn up additional coverage such as reviews. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources are primary or IMDB. Doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor WP:GNG. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Cinemas

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

Fails WP:ORG; does not demonstrate sufficient notability, as it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Furthermore, the content appears to be largely promotional and fails to adhere to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage, in The Hindu, to which one can add https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/asian-cinemas-to-open-nine-more-multiplex-screens-shortly-114041000365_1.html https://telanganatoday.com/allu-arjuns-aaa-cinemas-is-now-open-in-ameerpet-hyderabad https://thesouthfirst.com/entertainment/venkatesh-and-mahesh-babu-join-hands-for-a-new-multiplex-in-hyderabad/ https://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/new-cineplexes-come-up-in-hyderabad-suburbs/article6304545.ece etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And "promotional", how?? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton International Film Festival

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

Article about a smalltown film festival, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for film festivals. As always, film festivals are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to have reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG -- but this is referenced to just one hit of purely local coverage and two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and a Google search mostly found glancing namechecks of this in coverage of films or filmmakers rather than coverage about this.
There's also an ambiguity problem here, as there's a Canadian film festival (without an article yet) that's officially just the "Hamilton Film Festival" but does sometimes get mistakenly called the "Hamilton International Film Festival" -- and a significant number of the hits in the Google search meant the Canadian one and were thus irrelevant here. I also had to unlink almost every single inbound wikilink to this article (except the disambiguatory hatnote in New Zealand's Hamilton Underground Film Festival, which is now the only inbound left), because every single actor or film that was linking here as a "notable because awards" play was referenced to a source that explicitly verified that the Canadian one was the intended topic.
Since I'm still waiting for my restored access to Newspapers.com, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to other databases of archived US media coverage than I've got (or unbroken Newspapers.com) can find more than I was able to find on Google, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 3 October 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) 16:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has received independent coverage. Sources include : https://www.wktv.com/news/entertainment/hamilton-international-film-festival-this-week/article_6fa70b8c-490d-11ef-b1e6-db98625d17b7.html https://www.oneidadispatch.com/2018/07/30/your-neighbor-hamilton-natives-bring-hollywood-to-madison-county-with-film-festival/ https://eu.uticaod.com/story/mid-york-weekly/2012/09/19/film-festival-gives-back-to/41647345007/ https://www.syracuse.com/news/2011/01/sons_to_honor_dads_amazing_col.html. A DISAMB page can be created to mention 3 festivals with this name exist. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A small but heartfelt festival in a small town. Of the 4 sources cited by User:Mushy Yank, #1 is very brief, I couldn't access #2, #3 & #4 are "human interest" stories about the local brothers who founded the festival, but say little about the festival itself. I did finally find a film listing for 2024, and nearly all are short films. There are two full length documentaries but only one even had an entry in IMDB, with very little info, and it had nothing in a web search (except its own web site). I found announcements for the festival in local media (e.g. Colgate college newsletter, Madison County tourism). That's all. Lamona (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 redirect‎ to Hannah (name)#Fictional characters 2. Owen× ☎ 15:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna (character)

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

According to my Google search, this character is not individually notable from the film or television series. Sources only mention the character in passing, or not in a way that would meet SIGCOV or individual notability. As for the sources in the article, they are also passing and do not prove individual notability. (Keep in mind that the character is a main character, so obviously there will be a lot of sources, but for individual notability, there should be at least a few reliable, secondary sources about the specific character and their impact, just in case any fights break out if I don't say this.)

I'd say a delete is best because whichever page shall this article redirect to would be hard to decide. Spinixster (trout me!) 14:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Television. Spinixster (trout me!) 14:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:BEFORE shows WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and/or plot recap. A redirect might make sense, but this is a pretty broad search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like the most prudent choice here. I would pick the film, since it is the original work and better known than the TV series overall.★Trekker (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but to Hannah (name)#Fictional characters 2. I agree with Shooterwalker that the article title is way to broad to be useful as a redirect specifically to the movie. Not only is it somewhat doubtful that someone would type this in as a search term, but the vagueness of such a search means it could be looking for any other fictional character named Hannah or Hanna. This particular Hanna, with a link to both the movie and TV show, is already included in the list I suggested, so would be a much more useful target for a Redirect to help in searches. Rorshacma (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2024 (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.

Mazhanoolkkanavu

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

PROD removed with statement "Google/English language websearch is not good for Malayalam culture". If that is the case, why is it that Google Malayalam also yields nothing [1]. Changing the year parameter to today yields an unrelated music video of a similar name. Please find a review or two before keeping this. DareshMohan (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we can be sure this was released, with a solid source, I might support a redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2003 (or to Augustine's filmography?) because the cast is rather notable. But we have only IMDb and the other Db to prove it. Is that enough? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. Fails significant coverage WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. If anyone can find secondary independent reliable sources with significant coverage and two or more reviews from known critics, let me know and I will reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is impossible to just do a general search to find sources due to the way sources are archived. Best to check the Sify [2], Indiainfo [3], and Keralatalkies [4] reviews. A quick ctrl-f finds nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khomlang Laman

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

No WP:SIGCOV sources were found to meet WP:GNG, and there are no multiple nationally known critical reviews to meet WP:NFILM. The article cites unreliable sources, such as YouTube and BookMyShow. GrabUp - Talk 12:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Manipur. GrabUp - Talk 12:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abenao Elangbam#Selected filmography: lead actress. Another member of the cast has a page but plays a supporting role. Cinema of Manipur has lists of films and could be considered too but the actress seems a more appropriate target (the film is mentioned there and not in the general article). There is no List of Manipuri films for 2024. Can be redirected there later if the page is created. A redirect will allow to preserve history. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor to unreliable sources with no WP:SIGCOV, no reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. I did look into redirect to Abenao Elangbam#Filmpgraphy but this page too is poorly and unreliably sourced and would not be surprised if it makes to AFD nomination as well. RangersRus (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House/Wife

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

Not meeting notability criteria WP:NFF. - The9Man ^Talk 09:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danis_Goulet#Career: with the sources (all or some) to indicate it was a project for Netflix, who was the writer and other details (presence of Alice Braga) (and plot line, if judged necessary). A redirect will allow to preserve history and is standard in such cases (sources+notable director+cast+etc) even if the project crashed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare Theater

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

Fairly new article about a non-notable TV show; created by a new editor. No sources; no formatting. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Utah. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of Utah's longest running television shows and was very popular. I will be updating sources. As for formatting I will learn and improve the page. Intergalacticlanguage (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't been able to dig up much. There is Television Horror Movie Hosts 68 Vampires, Mad Scientists and Other Denizens of the Late-Night Airwaves Examined and Interviewed that covers the show, but there is no preview available. There's also a whole self-published book The Complete Index to Salt Lake City's Nightmare Theatre which would probably be decent for information, but doesn't contribute to notability. There's this dramatic piece from the Utah Education Network that says someone hanged themselves after watching the program. Other than that, it's just passing mentions like one of my favorite things to do was to curl up with my dad on a Friday night and watch the famed horror movie show starring Sammy Terry (a play on the word cemetery), “Nightmare Theater.” The low-budget series was just scary enough to capture my interest, but not so scary that DCFS needed to be alerted. I'm leaning delete, but I'm willing to wait to see what sources come up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to include this note. Fischer
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, consider redirecting title to Sammy Terry If you want to write about a local TV program, you need the sourcing to back up your claim. You also need to show that it has some enduring notability to it. I do not think that the Salt Lake program has that, after doing a search that would have included Utah newspapers from the last 30 years (allowing me to avoid printed titles in TV listings). However, there is a redirect target for this title...out of Indiana, where a show titled Nightmare Theater seems to have enjoyed a 27-year run at WTTV. The SIGCOV is substantial, and we have an article related to it already. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Utah show ran from 1962-1982 continuously. Fairly enduring, twenty years. Documentation noted includes television columns noting its popularity. Intergalacticlanguage (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn’t this drafted so that the creator can be helped, instead of having to defend the page at an Afd, which is pretty stressful? Draft, please, if the creator and other users agree, speedy-draft, if such a thing exists. I don’t think that nominating a new page 20 minutes after it was created was the best approach. ’Not ready for Main space”, sure but explain it and draftify is, if the creator is a newcomer/apparently not very experienced contributor, the most constructive path imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted the page roughly. The claim that it was the longest show in Utah and coverage might be enough to Keep this. If not, redirect and merge (in)to KTVX#History please. Very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that the Utah TV show in this article is entirely distinct from the Indiana TV show of the same name starring Sammy Terry. The Sammy Terry character was on Indiana TV from 1962 to 1989, occasionally thereafter, continuously makes personal appearances, and still produces web content; Sammy Terry has plenty of reliable sources (print news and at least one book), far beyond what the article currently references. If this article survives, it should be moved to something like Nightmare Theater (Utah), with Nightmare Theater being a redirect to Sammy Terry or a disambiguation page. Vadder (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree that, even if enough sourcing demonstrating notability could be found, the Utah show is not the primary topic. The Indiana show has much more material to work with. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I did the initial page, and I believe Nightmare Theater (Utah) would be the proper title. This would avoid confusion with all the other Nightmare Theater and Theatres out there. While the show was broadcast on a Salt Lake City station, it was received statewide. Intergalacticlanguage (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18 (British Board of Film Classification)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article appears to lack standalone notability, and much of it is unsourced and may be WP:OR. What references there are do not establish WP:SIGCOV:
1 is just a list of the BBFC's ratings.
2 is primary.
3 comes the closest to SIGCOV, but is mostly about 9 Songs as a case study for general film censorship in the UK, and only briefly mentions the 18 rating.
4 just links to the Channel 4 website. Probably a dead link.
5 is WP:USERG and essentially just a list.
6 covers a completely different rating system and never mentions the BBFC, or Cannibal Holocaust, as it is claimed to. I have no idea why this is cited, and it might just be a mistake.
7-9 are primary.
The external link is just describing the rating, and BFI has pages that go into similar detail about the other ratings.
Google Scholar lists many articles that briefly refer to the 18 rating, but none that focus substantially on it. [5] This article comes the closest, but is mostly a comparison of British and French rating systems in their entirety, and covers the 15 rating in just as much detail. Google Books and JSTOR similarly list several books/articles that mention the 18 rating, but none that give it substantial focus. All of them focus either on film censorship in the UK, or the BBFC as a whole. Those that do discuss the 18 rating, such as [6], discuss other ratings in similar detail. The 18 rating might be mentioned more often than the others in secondary sources, but this is because it is the rating censored films usually have. The 18 rating itself is never the main topic, and does not have SIGCOV. Discussion of the 18 rating individually, while definitely more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, appears insufficient to establish standalone notability compared to the U-15 ratings.
The BBFC is the only rating system I'm aware of that has individual pages for specific ratings. The standard practice is to include information about ratings on the system's page, as with Pan-European Game Information or Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft. Ratings from other systems with their own pages tend to be notable due to their rarity, and their articles are usually lists, such as List of NC-17 rated films or List of AO-rated video games. The BBFC 18 rating is not particularly rare, so it does not meet what appear to be the criteria for a standalone page (a list would be far too long). Most of the content of this article is already covered in British Board of Film Classification, History of British film certificates, and Film censorship in the United Kingdom. There is already ample information here on the 18 rating, and this article should redirect to British Board of Film Classification#Current certificates. Masskito (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Law, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a detailed article, whose sourcing can be improved, just like R18. But significant coverage in reliable sources warrants a standalone page. Civil Liberties and Human Right, p. 560 (Fenwick, H. (2009). Civil Liberties and Human Rights. Taylor & Francis); Smartt, U. (2017). Media & Entertainment Law Taylor & Francis; Controversial Images: Media Representations on the Edge (2012). Palgrave Macmillan, and so on, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Obviously this has massive coverage in books and periodicals, which comes up immediately on even the most cursory search. I could point, for example, to this discussion of changes to the scope of the classification: [7] [8] [9]. James500 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional primates in film

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

A vast majority of list is WP:LISTCRUFT and fails WP:LISTCRIT. I would also support a merge back into List of fictional primates if the outcome isn't deletion. Sir MemeGod  15:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, Animal, and Entertainment. Sir MemeGod  15:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST (and yes, before I hear it should, it does ALSO meet the criterion for lists, see https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/15-famous-movie-monkeys/ or https://www.cbr.com/movie-tv-greatest-apes-ranked/ or https://collider.com/best-movie-monkeys-ranked/ etc,) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the issue though. This list could easily be merged back into the main article with no length or accessibility issues arising, which is what I assume SPLITLIST concerns. Sir MemeGod  21:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could, maybe, everything is feasible. But should it? SPLITLIST says "Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy." Note that there are FIVE detailed lists on the page: this one and List of fictional primates in comics, List of fictional primates in television, List of fictional primates in animation List of fictional primates in literature. If you merge back one, you merge back all the other and then you have an awful navigation experience. I would go even further, and suggest to undo the redirect for List_of_fictional_primates_in_video_games but that might be discussed later maybe. I probably won't make any further comments here. Decide what you think best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional primates per WP:ATD, but this precise of a list fails WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support synthesizing the pages with repeated info. There is a list of fictional monkeys listed on the [[Pet Monkey]] page, which doesn't fit the other content on that page. I think those fictional characters need to be filtered and moved elsewhere. Monkeywire (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La légende de Thierry Mauvignier

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

None of the (non primary) sources here even mention the documentary, they're all on La Légende des seigneurs assassins (which this is a documentary about the making of??? why would someone make an article on the making of film and not the actual main film???). Even with that all the sources here are quite regional French sources under what is required from NFILM, so I have no clue if that other film is notable (could be, just judging off what's in the page). This was deleted on frwiki 3 years ago; I think this and several related articles (Thierry Mauvignier, Dylan Besseau, Guillaume Gevart) may have some promotional stuff going on here and on simple wikipedia but it is difficult to tell what exactly is happening here. There is this I found in a search which might be ok but it is the only thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and France. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dylan Besseau: or to Thierry Mauvignier#Biography. (Aside: replying to the nominator's question, the article they quote states: "Although this institutional project was initially intended as a making-of, it has become a work in its own right, surpassing the reputation that Thierry Mauvignier's short film was expected to obtain - the greatest irony for a film that was intended to be rather confidential') -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that but it seemed contradictory to me because there are far less sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but I was just trying to reply to your question :D. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble Sleeping (film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a film of unclear release status, not adequately sourced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFILM.
This has gone through multiple cycles of "is it released or not?" in the past decade; it was claimed as "upcoming" when the article was created in 2015, then was edited in 2017 to claim that it had been released in 2015, and then got edited again in 2020 to indicate that it was still unreleased -- meanwhile, IMDb claims it was released in 2018, which has proven entirely unverifiable, while this piece in Screen Anarchy claims it was "long-hibernating" when it was "finally released" in 2022, but even that piece is just a short blurb wrapping a YouTube promo clip, not substantive or GNG-building coverage about the film.
As always, however, films are not all "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show passage of WP:GNG on coverage about them -- but three of the five footnotes here are unreliable junk that isn't helping to build GNG at all, the two acceptable sources (Dread Central and The Wrap) both have to be discounted if the film didn't come out in 2015 as they claimed it was supposed to, and that Screen Anarchy blurb is the only new thing that's been published in any GNG-worthy reliable source since 2015 at all, which means even the best sources here aren't good enough if they're all either short blurbs or inaccurate problems.
Especially given that there are such unresolved questions about when this was ever actually released in the first place, there's just nothing here of enough enduring significance to exempt it from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with Robert Adetuyi#Career: where it is simply mentioned, and merge content about genre (+simplified plot), cast, date, etc; and sources. Not opposed to~~ Keep, given the existing coverage (and the film seems to have been released; review.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC) and in light of the reviews identified by Donaldd23, at least. (The 3 reviews show the film was released in 2022 and is therefore considered a 2022 film). Thanks-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in addition to the review listed above my Mushy Yank, there are these reviews [10] and [11] . And the question of it being released or not is answered by the fact it is streaming on Tubi [12] DonaldD23 talk to me 13:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "Heyuguys" nor "This Is Film" are reliable sources of GNG-building film reviews at all — film reviews have to come from reputable and established publications to build a film's notability, not just any random WordPress blogger that you can find on the internet. And while AIPT is better, it isn't enough to vault a film over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy review that can be found. And I didn't question that the film has been released, but we've got three conflicting claims about when it was released with no fully satisfactory resolution to the matter of whether it belongs in Category:2015 films, Category:2018 films or Category:2022 films — of which it must be in one of those three, with absolutely no leeway for any "then just don't categorize it for year of release at all" opt-outs, so we can't just handwave that away as a non-issue. "Has been released" is not an instant notability freebie at WP:NFILM in and of itself — even a film that has been released still has to pass GNG on proper reliable source coverage about it, and can't park its notability on blogs or primary sources just because it's available for streaming somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Templates