Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:FILMDEL)
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.


Purge page cache watch
Scan for Film AfDs

Scan for Film Prods
Scan for Film template TfDs

Related deletion sorting


Film

edit

I Love the '90s (American TV series)

edit
I Love the '90s (American TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of a set of articles on a TV show. Note that all of those have only one single reference--look at I Love the '90s: Part Deux, and you will find a little pop culture article that really only helps I Love.... The articles themselves are nothing but catalog info at best, all OR/trivia. One of the articles was created by a sock, User:Leviathan648, but I haven't checked them all. A redirect would be fine. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Average Student Nani

edit
Average Student Nani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This appears to have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to keep it.
Mon Bhai (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of David Cross in Alvin and the Chipmunks

edit
Criticism of David Cross in Alvin and the Chipmunks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even if this topic passes WP:GNG, it would then be a classic WP:NOPAGE case. This article is largely a compilation of blog posts, online comments, and celebrity gossip reporting. There may (or, quite possibly, may not) be a place for two sentences about this to be included at David Cross, but that's it -- at most. EEng 22:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with EEng that this is mostly gossip and does not deserve its own page. I think a good solution is a sentence about the Chipwreck producer, and maybe another sentence could be added to the David Cross page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpuddin (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Men Who Lost China

edit
The Men Who Lost China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to the recently deleted article on The World Without US by the same filmmaker, no signs of significant coverage. The article's current sourcing is not independent or significant, and I could not find any signs of further coverage after an online search (given that the film has less than 100,000 views on YouTube, I doubt that coverage exists). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China's Century of Humiliation

edit
China's Century of Humiliation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to the recently deleted article on The World Without US by the same filmmaker, no signs of significant coverage. The article's current sourcing is not independent or significant, and the best I found from a Google search is a forum review, which is not significant. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish films of 1972

edit
List of Turkish films of 1972 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost all redlinks and tagged uncited for years. Either I have misunderstood the Wayback Machine or the cite on the Turkish article only goes as far as B Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere Media

edit
AfDs for this article:
Sphere Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a push to get this into the mainspace. Attempted to clean up the promotional tone just added by IP but it seems to be WP:TNT territory. Since last deletion discussion, the only thing I see is an announcement of a purchase which is a routine announcement (followed by multiple sources engaging in churnalism) and falls short of meeting WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Companies, and Canada. CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator was notified via script. Pinging other previous participants @Timtrent:, @DoubleGrazing:, @Robert McClenon:, @Vanderwaalforces:, @Jumpytoo:, @JMWt:. For the references used other than I mention in the nomination, there is a great source assessment in the first deletion discussion.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything has changed from the previous AfD to make it pass WP:NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of course there is a push by the company and their people to get it into mainspace. That is why some members of the Wikipedia community are pushing back. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is an improvement over the previous version, in that it no longer contains puffery. It now reads as if it was written by the corporate technical writer from the company's viewpoint. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Rammed full of "Sphere has announced" and doesn't even bother to hide the fact that it is an advert. Fails WP:GNG. Is WP:PROMOTION 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still keep, it would be quite weird, in my opinion, if a production company which made series for major broadcasters wasn't notable. Previous AfD has an alternative source assessment which I agreed with, and I think the case is even stronger now. JMWt (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    comment It's hard to assess the prior alternative source assessment as the articles are not linked, but the three most promising sources from that assessment don't exactly pan out. Variety sources in the current article are about acquisition of Sienna, which is substantive and independent about Sienna but not very independent about Sphere. Same with Hollywood Reporter. Canadian Theater Review isn't linked in article and I couldn't find it on my own. What are you seeing that I'm not?
    Clicked through a bunch of sources, and they are either interviews or brief mentions, or deal announcements which I tend to think are generated from press releases. I can't find anything with my own searches (looked at Google Scholar, Google news, some targeted google web searches).
    I agree in principle a major company with real-world impact should have an article. But at this point all I have is WP:IAR and I'm not sure why we should go there for this article, which seems to be all based on corporate news and press releases. Oblivy (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I don't look at it like that. I think they are notable because they are a producer of television and this is shown by coverage in independent third party sources. For example 1 is not just PR puff or interview (and I've made my views known on notability and interviews before) it's a piece of reportage by a named writer. And this isn't the only piece available. If this page somehow isn't kept then we are applying a GNG standard that isn't applied elsewhere. Which in my view isn't fair. JMWt (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree that the VarietyDeadline interview is earned media. That's one.
    I'm not sure I understand your last sentence - yes, the NCORP notability standard is much higher and the way it's been applied to interviews is sometimes hard to defend (but the defenders of that application seem to have won that battle).
    Would like to see other views. I think you can see I'm not a hard no, but I find it really hard to get excited about an article that's all about deals. Oblivy (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On interviews, my view is that if a publication carries an interview, that shows the subject is notable in the opinion of the editor of the publication. (If they didn't think it was notable, why would they be covering it?) If it is a RS and the piece is clearly more than puff or a PR then for me that's an indication of notability.
    Fwiw the piece I offered was from Deadline. There are also pieces in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. It strikes me that this is more than enough to meet the GNG in normal circumstances.
    On "excitement", I just try to assess whether decent publications have covered the subject, my feelings about the contents of the article are irrelevant. JMWt (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why publications would carry interviews is pretty much churnalism. Clicks, views, and filling their content calendar. Printing an interview is in no way an endorsement by a publication they feel the topic notable. It means that they feel it will get clicks. Interviews would required independent analysis of the information provided or it would not be considered to meet WP:ORGCRIT standards. With that in mind, the Variety and Deadline pieces, while interviews, DO provide independent analysis so even though they were interviews they would meet ORGCRIT (see my comments below as these counting towards notability in my opinion). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article obviously does need significant cleanup for advertorialism, but making notable television series and films is obviously a valid notability claim for a production company. It's obviously terrible as written — I just had to add wikilinks to its three big multi-award-winning television series (Sort Of, Transplant and The Porter) that were mentioned in the article only as unlinked names, and the article is completely forgetting to even mention other important stuff like 19-2, Bad Blood, This Life, 1995 (big current box office smash with multiple current award nominations pending) and The Dishwasher. It's a bad article in its current form, you'll get no disagreement from me about that, but there's a lot more to this company, and a lot better sourcing available for it, than shown — in addition to the Variety and The Hollywood Reporter stuff described above, there's also plenty of coverage in publications like Playback and RealScreen, that might have been overlooked solely because non-Canadians haven't heard of them, and a company that has existed since 1984 in the francophone media sphere (pun semi-intended) before expanding into English content only within the past decade, there's also almost certainly a lot of coverage in French that would entail trawling BANQ instead of just a Google search alone.
    Also, the page was created by a long-established Wikipedia editor who is not known to have direct personal connections with Sphere, so it isn't an obvious conflict of interest by the company (especially since I really deeply doubt that the company would forget to mention major, major things like 19-2, Bad Blood or 1995 at all.) Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - This article does not speak for itself because it does not discuss independent coverage of the studio by reliable sources. It is written from the company's viewpoint, as if it were written by the corporate technical writer, describing what the company did, with no mention of third-party coverage. Reading like it was written by the corporate technical writer is not as bad as the previous version, which read as if it was written by a corporate marketeer, but it still does not address the need for third-party coverage. A reader who reads this article cannot be expected to view the 46 references that this article has been reference-bombed with to know why the company is thought to have corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've undertaken a major push to clean up the advertorialism and prune back the excessive citation overkill, so the article is now in a much, much better state. Again, we're talking about a company that's made a lot — and I mean a lot a lot, like dozens — of the most notable Canadian television shows and several important films in both English and French over at least the past two decades, so basic notability isn't in doubt here, and the quality of the article writing was the only problem. And since I'm Wikipedia's resident guru of all things Canadian film and television, my judgement of the notability status of a Canadian film and television production company should carry a lot of weight, since I'm the person who actually created a lot of our articles about the company's notable film and television productions in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the cleanup on the page. If we can save something that is notable that is obviously better than simply deleting. Putting aside the fallacy of authority, this still needs to meet WP:NCORP as notability is not inherent simply for making films. If you can point out the sources you feel meet WP:ORGCRIT I will have another look and even withdraw the nomination should they support notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No fallacy of authority needs to be set aside, as none was committed. And as for which sources support notability, I fail to see which sources currently present in the article don't, as they're all coverage about the company from reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I misread your original comment. It seemed as if you were asserting your vote should be given more weight than say, mine as the OP. For the references that do not meet ORGCRIT, let's just look at the last reference used on the page. It is a a routine announcement so fails the WP:CORPDEPTH portion of the guideline. Could not be considered for notability as it only verifies someone who is an executive there. Oblivy provided two sources below which are this and this. I see both of these are meeting WP:ORGCRIT. If there is at least one additional that goes into depth about the company that someone can provide, I will gladly withdraw the nomination and do the cleanup to the page, including removal or rewriting of the company-speak just added by the IP editor. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is not that every source in an article has to be of equal depth to establish notability — passage of GNG can be established both by sources that delve in depth and by a group of shorter sources that accumulate in number. So as long as a source represents third-party coverage about some aspect of the company in a reliable source, which virtually all of the footnotes do, it still contributes toward passage of GNG regardless of whether it's "deeper" or "lighter" coverage. Deeper coverage is of course valuable, but "lighter" coverage is still valid and GNG-building, especially since it can be highly subjective as to which side of the "deeper vs. lighter" line any given source even falls on in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I applaud @Bearcat's work in cutting the article back so it's not such a litany of corporate transactions. I also did my own searches again, and found that one of the Variety articles was quite substantive and independent. On re-checking it's already in the article.
Thus I think we have two SIGCOV articles, the Deadline article and the Variety article. That is enough for me to say it meets NCORP. Oblivy (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - an IP editor is playing silly beggars and undeleting most of what had been taken out. So we are back with loads of unnecessary references. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I had to bring back those sources because one of them said that Sphere launched a international film sales division and Sphere actually acquires Sienna Films back in March 2020 and not 2022. 148.252.158.62 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You didn’t have to do this. We’ve all been around the block a long time in these parts. If you are an IP editor working on behalf of the subject of this article, you are not helping your case. JMWt (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (film series)

edit
The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can not find much to apply WP:SIGCOV (specifically, that the sources "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". and "A film series article should only be created when the series encompasses at least three films. An article for two films is too premature for consolidating details from both." Articles I've found that review it any form primarily focusing on the book series (examples: Michigan Daily,

On my own research to try to expand the article, it was similarly limited to usually a single sentence with no signifigant coverage. Anything about a third film is usually just reunions of the cast at unrelated events or how cast/crew are open to a third film ( example).

Scholarly articles did turn up: Girls' Sexualities in the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants Universe: Feminist Challenges and Missed Opportunities from 2011, it analyzes the series as a combination of the novels and the films as a franchise. I'd suggest expanding the novel section to incorporate the little details here, but per the above, this has failed the rules mentioned above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion (film)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Exclusion (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film that has never actually been released, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFF criteria. It is true that Deepa Mehta announced about 15 years ago that a film about the Komagata Maru was entering development -- but it's never actually been completed or released at all, and certainly not in 2014 as this article claims (per this article, which states that the film was "still in the pipeline" as of 2019.)
But the references here are mainly primary sources and dead links, which are not support for notability — and the only nominally acceptable source is a brief glancing (and likely erroneous) namecheck of it in an overview of Mehta's entire career, not coverage about this film. And while a bit of reliable source coverage can be found about her announcement that this was going into development, there's not enough of that to suggest a reason why a never-finished film could remain permanently notable despite its failure to ever come to fruition: there's no evidence that it even entered photography at all, and the search string "Deepa Mehta exclusion" mainly just brings up references to the narrative themes of Beeba Boys and Funny Boy.
So this film was simply never completed or released at all, and thus isn't permanently notable as an unrealized project. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cinemas

edit
Scott Cinemas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failing to find "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to meet WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are currently primary. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

120 Bahadur

edit
120 Bahadur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film is scheduled to be released a year from now and just started filming. Majority of sources are announcements or press releases. CNMall41 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my vote is for keep, kindly understand that there are many Hollywood and Bollywood movies that are upcoming in 2025 some are more than a year away yet many already have established wiki pages on them such The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more the list is endless. The information current available on the film 120 Bahadur is good enough to create a wiki page and as time progress and more info is available the wiki page will definitely grow with time. Moreover it is a film about a historically significant event. So the wiki page deserve a place with other films that are up for release in 2025. Bonadart (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument seems to fall under WP:OSE which is not something that can be used to support notability. Can you point out which references are specifically significant coverage that would count towards notability? The ones I see do not but will look at any you provide in case there is something I missed. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i am in no mood to argue, my contention is if The Accountant 2, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3 which are pure fiction can have well established wiki page, then 120 Bahadur which is based on real life and a immensely historical and significant event if you may think of, also deserves a place, and if you want to talk of capturing space in that case i think this page doesnt even grab a space more than tip of safety pin out of whole wiki sphere. Bonadart (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I am in no mood to argue" - This is a discussion, not an argument. It does sound like maybe you should back away if you are not in the mindspace to discuss. I will reiterate that everything you stated, including in the reply above, would fall under WP:OSE.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the history it previously was. Creator objected to the draft and moved it back to mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see from page history that the page was moved to draft but it was moved back to mainspace but I am giving benefit of doubt that Bonadart will accept the consensus by the closer, if it ends with draftify and not move it back to mainspace till the film gets significant coverage likely after post-production. RangersRus (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atma Rama Ananda Ramana

edit
Atma Rama Ananda Ramana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How does a college short film that is screened at its own parent company's film festival yield notability? Annapurna College of Film and Media is owned by the same people as Annapurna Studios. The only reliable source is The Hindu which talks about four other short films too, not just this film. The Telugucinema.com source is about the festival and not the film. All other sources are unreliable (not listed as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources because there are so many unreliable sources that exist and not possible to list all of them. tollywoodbuzz.com has the same reliability as Tracktollywood.com or Tollywood.net.

I genuinely feel that this article was created by [1] to have an extra link at PVR Raja. DareshMohan (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amor de otoño

edit
Amor de otoño (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, actors are also not notable, and there are no sources either. Plasticwonder (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has an entry on page 10 of Manrupe, Raúl; Portela, María Alejandra (2003). Un diccionario de films argentinos II 1996-2002. Buenos Aires: Editorial Corregidor. . Has reviews in Argentine publications. Some cast and crew articles are notable and can be created.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels International Festival of Eroticism

edit
Brussels International Festival of Eroticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FilmFreeway

edit
FilmFreeway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahirbhoomi

edit
Bahirbhoomi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

  • 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]
  • Keep according to the references mentioned in the article.
Induvadhone (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear some opinions from editors more experienced in AFD article and source reviews.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Cinemas

edit
Asian Cinemas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 11 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! 06:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton International Film Festival

edit
Hamilton International Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

We would need to see more than just four hits of purely local coverage to establish notability here. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 13 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:55, 10 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! 17:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mazhanoolkkanavu

edit
Mazhanoolkkanavu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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 [2]. 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]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare Theater

edit
Nightmare Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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]
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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've added a hatnote to distinguish the two identically named shows. Moving to a better title, if applicable, can be done once the AfD is closed. Those who !voted to redirect to Sammy Terry, please consider amending your suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist per OwenX to see if further input/existing contributors have anything to add.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three shows are mentioned as notable on the KCPX (KTVX) page. Hotel Balderdash has its own page. The other two are Fireman Frank and Nightmare Theater. Intergalacticlanguage (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

edit

Categories

edit

Templates

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Film&oldid=1252132647"