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

Failing Better Now

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a WP:BEFORE turned up no reviews. Except this which is hardly a reliable source. Geschichte (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; clearly no reviews apart from cinemacats above. Does not pass on any other criteria.Spiralwidget (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a couple of offhand mentions in Newspapers.com, but not anything that would establish that this film is notable. It looked to have released to extremely little fanfare, with the little coverage it did receive it got by virtue of having DeWitt play a smaller role. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ORBIS Production

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

Promotional article with multiple iterations of press releases as sources. No evidence of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Photography, Companies, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of the best combined PR, advertising and marketing campaign here. This looks like Wikipedia is their company website. All sources cited are completely unreliable and there is no need to list and Analyse them one after the other. The sources are distributed paid for articles. Mekomo (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mekomo, sorry for the trouble! Since I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a few months now (I initially started out of curiosity without being registered) and this is one of my first pages (see, for example, the one on Mario Orfeo), could you explain better why these sources are not acceptable? I understand that some sites are business directories, but others are from independent outlets, and they don't seem to be paid articles to me. Jerabotto (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JTtheOG and thanks for the feedback. I'm new to Wikipedia, and of course, before trying to create a page, I spent some time exploring the portal. While editing pages like Martha Production, Indiana Production e The Gunther Corporation I tried to follow the same style to make as few mistakes as possible. Could you help me understand in broad terms the differences between those pages and the one I proposed? Jerabotto (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerabotto: Hello there. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. The only sources with significant coverage of the company are press releases. This one is even published directly onto PRnewswire.com, while exact copies are blasted onto topvideoproduction.com and Yahoo Finance. The IndieWrap article is clearly not independent either, as it uses the same kind of promotional language and ends with a link to the company's social media. Everything else are passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, I think I understand now. If I were able to find third-party and more reliable sources, could that change anything, or is the decision taken at this point? Jerabotto (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources which cover the subject directly and in-depth, yes. See WP:GNG for more detail on this. And no, no decision has been made. This discussion will be open for a week but could be extended beyond that. JTtheOG (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I've already made some corrections after your suggests. In the next days I will try to add new references if I can! Jerabotto (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only mentions of the company name in short articles about projects. Nothing substantial that I can find. As this article has few edits beyond those of the creator it may be suitable for a move to draft, and perhaps to be taken through WP:AFC. Lamona (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lamona, thanks for the suggestion. I’m continuing to add more sources and refine the text as much as possible. A question: is the move to a draft requested by the admins, or should I proceed with it myself? Jerabotto (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stuart Lewis Yates

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Article is written in a promotional tone and sources provided do not discuss Lewis in any significant way, but focus on the company (and in some the company itself is only mentioned in the article). ... discospinster _talk 19:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, United Kingdom, and Scotland. ... discospinster _talk 19:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Reliable Sources: Since the original comment, several additional reliable sources have been included, including articles from Screen Daily, which discuss The Mise En Scène Company's involvement in international film markets and provide specific insights into the company's activities under Paul Stuart Lewis Yates' leadership. This coverage in trade publications highlights Yates’ influence on MSC's growth and market strategies, directly linking his role to the company's achievements in the independent film industry.
Notability through Independent Coverage: Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline (WP ) requires subjects to be covered by reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. With trade magazines like Screen Daily now among the references, Yates meets this criterion, as the sources highlight MSC’s market presence and contributions to film sales, directly attributing these developments to Yates’ leadership. Coverage from sources of this caliber signals Yates' relevance within the industry.
Significant Industry Contributions (WP ): According to Wikipedia’s Notability for Biographies (WP ), individuals who have significantly contributed to their field are considered notable. Yates’ work in expanding MSC’s presence at major markets like Cannes and the European Film Market shows his influence in promoting independent films globally. As the founder and executive, he has shaped MSC’s strategies, making him a notable figure in the film sales industry.
Neutral Tone and Factual Focus: The article has been carefully revised to maintain a neutral, encyclopedic tone, focusing on verifiable facts about Yates’ career and impact. By including only sourced information about his contributions, the article aligns with Wikipedia’s neutrality standards and avoids promotional language.

Demosthenes1999 (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply looks AI-generated, please let's keep the discussion among humans. AI answers tend to be severely bloated, as the one above indeed is. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, that's semi correct, I had AI re-format my argument points to make them more coherent but also to save time. AI edited but not generated. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: a small section to the Mise en Scene company article would seem fine. I don't think the individual is notable without the company. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that sounds good, but I don't think saying someone is not notable when you remove the thing that makes them notable makes any sense, like I don't think The king is notable without his crown sort of thing, just doesn't really make sense. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, the article is completely fine for EnWiki. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant content to The Mise En Scene Company. No evidence of independent notability, a check shows all online sources are for activity done by the company with him as a signatory or spokesperson, which speaks to his importance within the company but not to any wider relevance outside it, so a brief mini-bio in the company article is both logical and sufficient. Crowsus (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense I can’t really argue against that specifically. I made the profile based on emerging influence and potential trajectory. Mainly from my interest in a couple of their films which I want to make profiles for eventually, the True Don Quixote and Anchorage I figured it matches with past precedents on wikipedia for founders and having a separate profile means it can be tracked and updated a bit easier. I have a friend who works at screen who says they’ve got some good projects on the horizon. I can’t argue against merging exactly though cause that is in line with policy but I’m obviously biased cause I wrote it lol. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

It should be highlighted that Paul Yates is recognized in sources as the founder of the company, a role far more significant than that of a mere signatory or spokesperson as suggested above.

This distinction aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines on “biographies of living persons” and “businesspeople,” where founders with documented influence, leadership, or innovation in their fields have greater justification for a separate article than someone solely acting in a representative capacity. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it says "documented". This means that there must be reliable sources significantly discussing him and his influence, leadership, or innovation (or even his emerging influence or potential trajectory). At the moment there are none, only sources noting that he is the founder of the company. (Also you have recommended "keep" twice, when you should only do so once, so I will strike out the first "keep" as redundant.) ... discospinster _talk 21:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for striking the keep, sorry trying to get used this chat room format. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

used to Demosthenes1999 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the articles discuss the company the person founded, which can still contribute to demonstrating their notability, but clutching on straws by that point though. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Estonia

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

Poorly sourced and fails WP:NLIST. The Estonian language version of this article has more entries but also poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and Estonia. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only three entries and one notable entry is not a list. Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajf773@LibStar: has good potential to grow per e.g. etwiki list. Some references and info are also added Estopedist1 (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. 46 blue links (ie 46 potential entries...) on the Estonian page, that is an indication that should be noted and that is at least promising. And there is also a list dedicated to those of Tallinn only (in Estonian). Mushy Yank (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:NOTDIR and is only manageable because of the country's relatively small size. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with LibStar and Mangoe, fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR. If it had more links and sources, then it might be passable, but it is not acceptable under it's current condition.

Aknip (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Poorly sourced, yes: cleanup issue. Fails NLIST? no, meets NLIST as the topic as a set has received coverage. (Thomson, C. (2007). Estonia - Culture Smart! The Essential Guide to Customs & Culture. Kuperard. for example or Noble, J., Williams, N., Gauldie, R. (1997). Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania(Keeling): Lonely Planet, p. 147, for a start) At least a redirect and merge to Cinema of Estonia seems warranted to preserve history. The topic would seem to be perfectly encyclopaedic, though.... Mushy Yank (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and how precisely and exactly is that list supposed to fall under NOTDIR? Mushy Yank (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anxiety (Inside Out)

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

This article recently sprung up, but not in a good way. I find Joy more notable to have an article, but Anxiety doesn't. She currently fails WP:GNG and doesn't have much to say. She is a fairly new character, i would suggest a redirect to either Inside Out (franchise) or Inside Out 2. Toby2023 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the sources already cited in the article establish notability, especially Berlatsky, Noah (2024-06-14). "Opinion: Why Anxiety from 'Inside Out 2' is such a relatable character to me". CNN.McYeee (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Comics and animation, and Disney. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Inside Out 2. The article does not have enough content to warrant a new page. Just because sources exist does not mean this page is needed. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either of the two articles mentioned by the nominator. It lacks notability as some of the references are sort of a review of the movie instead of a special feature about the character. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film, I don't see SIGCOV for the character yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean merge [1] and [2] give better analysis towards the character, but I cannot discern between the analysis of the character and Riley/whole movie, so these more up to interpretation, therefore I'm a weak/lean !merge. I think this article can exist with more analysis and I'll change my !vote if more comes in. Conyo14 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there was a discussion already about this see Talk:Inside Out 2/Archive 1#Create your own article for Anxiety where a user was trying get someone else to make them the article, I replied I was busy on the box office records by inside out 2 draft but they keep on asking someone to make it for them i originally said I would look into it when I get the time but I think other characters (for example Sadness) probably is more noteworthy so I created a draft for that user to work on the draft currently here Draft:Anxiety (Inside Out) Fanoflionking3 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fanoflionking3: I was the one who made that discussion a few months ago, but I was not the one who created the article. The real author is @MrKaraRocks:, I was interested in creating it months ago but as time passed (and you didn't finish the other work) I asked for the interest. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection Pictures Studio

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

I have failed to find any independent and secondary coverage of this company, much less anything that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH, just database listings and self-published sources such as social media profiles. I draftified it but it was returned to mainspace, so draftification isn't an option here – besides, I do not think that sources exist at this point.

The only claims to notability made in the article are that the company has worked on notable films and worked together with notable companies – but notability is not inherited. bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Maharashtra. bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only founded in 2023 may be too soon. Nothing in google news, fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Across Mt. Wati

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

Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific criteria to qualify for articles. But this just states that the film exists, which is not automatically enough in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about the film to pass WP:GNG.
Two of the three footnotes here, however, are just tangential verification of geographic facts about a mountain that features in this film's plot, which are not about this film for the purposes of helping to establish the notability of this film —and while there is one footnote that is about this film, that isn't enough all by itself, and we would need to see several sources about the film before it passed GNG. (It also warrants note that even the one footnote that is about this film was one I had to search for and recover as it initially just redirected me to the publication's front page due to an error in its URL — but for an article that's barely a week old because the film premiered a matter of days ago, that's not so much a "sometimes newspapers move their content to new URLs after the fact" issue as it is a WP:CIR issue.)
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the film has more sourcing, and I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much deeper knowledge of where to find good Ugandan sourcing than I've got can find more coverage to salvage it with, but a film's mere existence isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have more than just one hit of coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Uganda. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not delete, but allow improvement of article since other editors are willing to add content in addition to my own contributions. I created it for the Wikipedia Africa Project... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikolugbara (talk • contribs)

Firstly, new comments go at the bottom of this discussion, not the top.

Secondly, all pages on Wikipedia are available for other editors to "add content". But you still have to ensure that there's a certain minimum standard of sourcing present in the article right away, because articles have to meet a certain minimum standard of sourcing just to be allowed to even exist in the first place. And that minimum standard of sourcing requires more than one source about the film. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fried Water Films and Entertainment

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG and no WP:SIGCOV. A company, corporation or organization is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The only sources I could find just list an address and an email address. Couldn't find any films they have ever made. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has been unsourced since its creation. A few IPs have blanked the content in the past claiming that "the company doesn't exist or has shut down". It was surprising that my search yielded no reliable sources. The few I found were all company profiles, but these primary sources are not helpful in establishing notability.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a city directory entry and whatever films they did produce were just non-notable shorts. Nothing here or there. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing from a cursory search to establish WP:ORGCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Balachandran

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

Movie maker does movie making things. While the movies are notable, this guy doesn't seem to be. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. UtherSRG (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Businesspeople. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tamil Nadu and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOEARLY. DareshMohan (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have edited and added some of the reliable sources i got. As per my idea, it now passes WP:PRODUCER and WP:HEYYMAN. Monhiroe (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete. The subject fails WP:NBIO and as a filmmaker, it is WP:TOOSOON to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Add more content, fix the refs and clean the prose before bringing it back to mainspace. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nations Cultures

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

I'm failing to find anything about this film in Reliable Sources and don't think It meets WP:NFILM. Of course this may just be a product of the generic name and it being an Iranian film, but the lack of inclusion in normally permissive databases (IMDB, etc.) or on fa.wiki, doesn't fill me with confidence. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Islam. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Iran. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing out there - even IMDb doesn't have this listed. There are roughly two or three possibilities for this. The first is that the film was released prior to the Internet being as widely available and archived, so any sources for this were either not put on the internet or are no longer easily found. The second is that the film was never released to the English speaking market and as such, any sources are in another language. If it was released when the internet wasn't as robust as it is now, then the mix of other language and late 90s, early 2000s internet issues would definitely keep sources from being found - Google doesn't always crawl those like it would an English language source. The third and also likely is that the film just isn't notable. As the nominator stated, the film isn't mentioned on the Persian/Farsi Wikipedia, so that is somewhat a nod in that direction. We'd really need someone fluent in Farsi to take a look and verify that there aren't any sources for this. I used Google Translate to give me a Farsi translation of the title (assuming that it was the same title in Farsi) and there aren't a ton of sources that came up. I'll see if I can find someone willing to do a search, just to be on the safe side. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some research on the listed Researcher/Script writer/Director/editor turns up a personal website on which he lists the series as running from 1994-1997, which may account for the lack of online sources as you say. He also seems to have adapted it into a book listed as being in English, but I can't figure out if it was also put out in Farsi. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The good news about not being able to find sources from the early 1990s is that a lot of stupid things Generation X did in our youth are not discoverable. The bad news is that a big chunk of history between the demise of small bookstores and the growth of Internet 2.0 is missing. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Allegiance

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Previously at AfD in 2006, the article claims that the film has "garnered major media coverage and was screened at numerous local and international film festivals to great response". No actual sources to confirm this. No sources were provided at the previous AfD. The best claim to notability is being a finalist at Australian Effects & Animation Festival (AEAF): [3]. NFILM doesn't mention being a finalist as an indication of notability, only a major award win. Even if this was counted towards notability (which I'm not), it wouldn't be enough on its own. Suggesting redirection to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits. Mika1h (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Australia. Mika1h (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources are kind of slow going since the bulk were done in the early to mid 2000s, but I'm finding evidence that this did get some coverage back in the day. I found some coverage of the film in The Age - the overall article was about SW fandom but the film is covered in some depth. I did find a copy of the fan magazine on Lulu, but you have to pay for it. I'm leaning towards this being notable - at the very least it should be mentioned somewhere because the sources that I'm finding tend to focus on it as one of the best examples of Star Wars fan film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Merge: I've added a source for I-CON's audience award (but that is not in itself neither sufficient nor likely to be overwhelmingly significant). It does not appear in Will Brooker's "Using the Force" (2002) despite what GBooks suggests. I'd take an actual review on theforce.net (non-forum) but there doesn't seem to be one. At best it looks like it could be a weak keep, but it's not there yet. Of the current sources, the Otero&Redondo book is a short descriptive para and has no independent analysis/review. Nor do the The Age stories. I can't read the Herald Sun article but it appears likely to be similar (?). I'm seeing very few hits for "Fan Films Quarterly", and not clear to me if they should be treated as an RS, and how much weight should be given to their opinion even if they are. La Muy's praise is limited to stating it has (GTranslated) "a more than successful setting". Datebook is a short but solid entry in a listicle by a freelancer, but it's currently the only thing which is solid. I've taken a stab at a merge here. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by Hydronium Hydroxide so far seems the best solution to me. Daranios (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just. 2020 (18 years after release) saw three paragraphs in San Francisco Chronicle, "Savoring ‘Star Wars’ with fans’ guidance" by Jef Rouner, May 4, 2020 and online [4]. At the time it had some coverage in Halliday, Claire (13 June 2002). "Amazing". The Age., in local news (very interview based) "In a galaxy - close to you". Melton/Bacchus Marsh Leader. 21 May 2002., and Williams, Kate (22 April 2002). "Star Wars fan - feels the force". Leader - Sandringham Brighton Advertiser. and other short mentions such as in [5]. International coverage almost 20 years later in SF Chron gets me over the line. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss You (film)

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

This is about an unreleased film which does not satisfy film notability. Unreleased films are only notable if production itself has received significant coverage by reliable sources. A review of the sources shows that they are all announcements or press releases about the film or its songs. The first five references, in four different media, are essentially identical, which is best explained that they are the same press releases to different media.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	The Hindu	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
2	cinemaexpress.com	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
3	thesouthfirst.com	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
4	www.business-standard.com	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
5	The Hindu	Same as 1	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
6	timesnownews.com	States that movie will be filmed.	Probably.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
7	Times of India	Passing mention of a song.	Maybe	No. Passing mention.	No	Yes
8	cinemaexpress.com	Press release about a song.	No.	No	Yes	Yes
9	cinemaexpress.com	Another press release about a song.	No.	No	Yes	Yes
10	news18.com	An announcement about the film.	Probably.	Not for this purpose.	Yes	Yes

There is also a draft; the draft and the article are by different authors. The information in this article and in the draft can be merged in the draft, and the draft can be submitted, with reviews and other quality sources, when the film has been released and reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because release is announced for late November, I would normally have suggested to keep this and I would have merged the draft into it .....but there are TWO drafts Draft:Miss You Movie (created yesterday, just before the article, same creator) and Draft:Miss You (film) by User:Gowthamaprabu (created 21. 10); the latter was declined by the nom. Read the following comment: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Miss You (film) instead.", said the nom of the present AfD when declining the page.....which, if I was the page creator, would make me think, the page discussed here is not concerned by deletion! Still as Gowthamaprabu's Draft was the first page to be created, I consider it should be the starting point so I suggest a merge of all three pages into Draft:Miss You (film). Premise is known, actors are notable, coverage for verification exists, so even if it's the other way around, I won't be shocked but declining the Draft and inviting its creator to expand a page and, an hour later or so, taking the said page to AfD is a bit confusing.Mushy Yank (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Robert McClenon and @Mushy Yank! Hope you're both doing well! I wanted to provide some context regarding the article Miss You (2024), which covers the upcoming film set for release at the end of November 2024. As mentioned transparently, I have been commissioned by the producers to edit and create content for this article, ensuring accurate representation of the movie. I’ve Confirmed that the official release date is November 29, 2024, though due to a lack of publicly available citations, I haven't specified the date in the article itself. I’ve included all available information with relevant citations, and I believe the content is accurate and complete as presented. If possible, I'd suggest we retain the article and continue to improve it together. We could even consider merging it with Draft: Miss You (Film) by User:Gowthamaprabu to consolidate information. Meena1998 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Draft:Miss You (film) since the film's release is near, let's wait. Once it hits theaters, it is expected to get more coverage and critical reviews. You can then update the page and publish it through the AFC route. For now, let's merge its content into the declined draft:).Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daveed (2025 film)

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

Unreleased film, nothing especially notable about the production, therefore does not meet WP:NFILM, specifically WP:NFF, as an as yet unreleased film. Should have remained in draft space but has been moved back to main space, so deletion is required. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see many upcoming movie articles on Wikipedia, and as an editor who enjoys creating and editing movie articles, I’m particularly focused on the Indian film industry. My goal is to reach 10,000 edits and become a strong contributor to Wikipedia. Recently, I encountered a deletion nomination for an article on an upcoming film, even though its release date has been announced. I removed the "unreleased" category and added the "upcoming films" category since the shoot and post-production are complete. I’ve verified all the data through news articles, and everything seems accurate. This is the first time I've faced a deletion nomination for a film article, and I’m feeling a bit helpless. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Arjusreenivas (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the notbaility of prodcution, The film was distributed by Century Films which is the distributer of Malaikottai Vaaliban, Perumani and John Luther etc. These are the details I got from the producers social handles. Arjusreenivas (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability" would rather be established through sources independent of the subject. (Not saying that what you are saying is not true nor that it is not interesting) Mushy Yank (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thank you for your Participation in this Discussion, Please Check sources, I think the article have more than enough sources. Arjusreenivas (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the production, as stated, is notable. Everything is very, very standard. WP:NFF is clear: Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Basically, you should not be creating articles in main article space about the vast majority of films that have not yet released. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This article covers a film that's set to release in the next two months. Regarding production details, I can only reference publicly available news articles and interviews. Given the popularity of this film in India, I believe many people here are already aware of its production background. I kindly request someone from India to assess the notability of this article, especially regarding its production and other key details.

I welcome everyone to expand the article and contribute with verified information. I’m also sharing data I’ve gathered from media sources to help make this a comprehensive and accurate article. Please feel free to edit for clarity, correct any English errors, and improve. Arjusreenivas (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antony_Varghese#Films: listed there; given existing coverage, the fact that filming is wrapped, the cast, notable and details about productions are verifiable, I am not opposed to Keep if other users agree it can be kept (opposed to deletion, not necessary in the present case). Mushy Yank (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mushy Yank. Yes, I believe this article is relevant to keep on Wikipedia because the release date has been announced, and the film has already wrapped. Therefore, deletion would not be the right decision. Thank you for your comment. Arjusreenivas (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would be fine, until the film has released. I mean, draftifying would have worked, too, but... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The article meets 4 out of 5 of the WP:NFF production guidelines. Enough information is available to support article. Also it can be classified under the "2025 films, Upcoming films, Upcoming Malayalam-language films" category. Arjusreenivas (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "5 production guidelines" are you talking about? There is nothing unclear about WP:NFF: films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The film has successfully completed its production phase, and reliable sources confirm that it is currently in the post-production and marketing stages, with only the final release pending. The project meets 4 out of 5 of the WP:NFF production guidelines. Sufficient information is available to justify an independent article, and it can be classified under the "2025 films, Upcoming films, Upcoming Malayalam-language films" category.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I believe there are no notability issues with this article, so it should be retained. From my review, the movie is scheduled for release in two months, and it’s not from a new production or featuring unknown actors. Thank you for your contribution. Arjusreenivas (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We have the typical general announcements, churnalism, NEWSORGINDIA, etc., but no significant coverage such as bylined reviews. Nothing notable about production. Draftify would be a good WP:ATD. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The article was draftified once, and so shouldn't be draftified again, but WP:IAR. The danger, of course, is that it would just be moved back to article space again. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Panda Fighter

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

I do not believe this rip-off film is notable enough for inclusion. The article has 7 sources; however, sources 1 and 5 are merely lists of bad rip-off films where it is briefly mentioned, source 2 is an IMDB equivalent, source 4 is an amazon listing, source 6 and 7 are youtube videos about the film, and source 3 is about the studio and doesn't once mention the movie.

This film fails WP:NFILM as I can't find any more reliable sources out there. CoconutOctopus talk 10:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. CoconutOctopus talk 10:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's true it should be deleted because I tried to make another article about another rip off film called Chop Kick Panda and it got denied for creation and when trying to fix the article and resubmitting it, it later got the ability to resubmit it disabled. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for deletion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient coverage for notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources on the page+https://www.topito.com/top-plagiats-dessins-animes https://collider.com/worst-animated-movies-2000s-ranked-letterboxd/ https://collider.com/animated-movies-2000s-worst-ranked/ and even https://collider.com/worst-animated-movies-letterboxd/ https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/26648/7-hollywood-ripoffs-titles-and-posters-and-plots-you-wont-believe + https://www.avclub.com/don-t-look-directly-at-these-horrifying-children-s-movi-1798257240 + https://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/animated-mockbusters-list-94032.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160410042024/http://news.nster.com/1079-funny-and-ridiculous-rip-offs-of-famous-movies.html At the very least a redirect to List of Brazilian films of 2008 or to List of animated feature films of 2008 or to the 'original' film seems warranted in my humble opinion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've alreadt explained how I don't believe the sources in the article are notable or significant; none of the sources you link above appear to me to be significant coverage but mostly "fun lists" which aren't enough for inclusion. I also don't think the article title is notable enough for a redirect. CoconutOctopus talk 19:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you have every right to, I'm merely stating my case as to why deletion is correct. We'll see what the consensus is. CoconutOctopus talk 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should a Redirect be the path chosen Vídeo Brinquedo#Filmography might be the best target.Mushy Yank (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mushy Yank's work. WP:SIGCOV states that "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", and the sources are about cringe-y films, not the movie, but they do discuss it in detail - with WP:NFILM describes as not being a "plot summary with no critical commentary" (these sources do add critical commentary) and WP:SIGCOV describes as ensuring "no original research is needed to extract the content", which is very clearly evident as they describe the both the film's plot, the context in which it is made, and add critical commentary. Concerns are raised by other users about reliability, but, one of the sources is Colliders, which is considered a reliable source per WP:RSN for films [6]. Molecular Pilot 22:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, do you consider the following paragraphs, taken from the sources above, non-significant? (It's a real question) From my understanding of significance on WP, they are not passing mentions:

How does it compare to the original? Take Kung Fu Panda, render it in MS Paint, then take the MS Paint version and render it on an Etch-a-Sketch. We’re not done yet. Put that Etch-a-Sketch version back into MS Paint and color it using the paint bucket tool and…jeez, that still looks way too good. Any way we can do this all on a Commodore 64?The Little Panda Fighter is about a world inhabited by bears that all look like someone punched a jar of Play-Doh in the face. One particularly perverse panda spends an unsettling amount of time in his dank basement, but instead of begging others to put the lotion on the skin, this panda dreams of becoming a ballerina. Unfortunately, he is forced to become a kick boxer (typical panda struggle). Will he find a way to bring these two worlds together? The movie probably cares less than you do. Also, the panda falls down a lot. Because he’s fat. Comedy!
(MentalFloss)

The Little Panda Fighter follows the story of a clumsy panda named Pancada, who works at a boxing club and has big aspirations of becoming a professional dancer. After a strange miscommunication error, Pancada accidentally ends up being a combatant at his club's upcoming fight, being mistaken for a legendary panda fighter who challenged the club's champion. Pandaca now must train for his upcoming battle, and finds that his dancing skills may just be helpful for him in the ring.As far as animated rip-off movies go, it's hard to get more blatant and obvious than The Little Panda Fighter, which is attempting to leech off of the success of Dreamworks' Kung Fu Panda. While Kung Fu Panda was filled with exceptional and groundbreaking visuals, fun characters, and exhilarating battle sequences, The Little Panda Fighter features none of these positive aspects. Its minuscule budget resulted in a film with primarily lackluster dialogue sequences and dated animation quality, with a plot that only resembles Kung Fu Panda via having a Panda main character.
(Collider A)

A major trend that persisted throughout the 2000s was the abundance of cheap ripoff films that were released at the same time as more popular animated films as an attempt to siphon business from blockbuster titles. While this trend was just as prevalent in live-action as it was in animation, the cheaply animated examples more egregiously show the variance in quality between these poor excuses for films and the actual films they're ripping off. One of the most comically inept examples is The Little Panda Fighter, a blatant ripoff of Kung Fu Pandathat is unabashed in its copying. The Little Panda Fighter is a culmination of all the trends and facets that made these ripoff films both so terrible in execution and abundant and unavoidable in bargain bins of the era. While it's blatant to anyone with eyes just how much the film is using the likeness of Kung Fu Panda, the actual film itself couldn't be any more dissimilar, following a story of a panda who doesn't want to fight, but instead wants to dance. Especially when the original Dreamworks film exists, there's little reason to ever give The Little Panda Fighter the attention it so deeply craves.
(Collider B)

The Little Panda Fighter follows. the story of Pancada, a panda who works at a boxing club and has big dreams of becoming a world-famous dancer. After an unfortunate case of mistaken identity, Pancada accidentally gets caught up and is scheduled for an upcoming fight at his boxing club, and begins to train for what will be the fight of his life.It's clear from the get-go that The Little Panda Fighter 's primary purpose and reason for existing is to leech off of and scam unsuspecting viewers who mistook the film for Dreamworks' Kung Fu Panda, released the same year. Although, unlike the masterful animation style of the Dreamworks film, The Little Panda Fighter's cheap animation style leaves much to be desired. The film also features a hilariously strange plot, further amplified by the vocal performances.
(Collider C)

This movie could be a “Kung Fu Panda” spin-off about an unknown brother who managed to survive, but was separated from Po. And yet it’s just a trashy uninspired rip-off with a similar plot and lower budget. Besides, the panda on the poster doesn’t seem like a normal animal. It looks more like a host for some crazy fitness show for toddlers. Just kidding..
(NSTER, Archived)

I consider significance to be a threshold, and I would tend to think that it is reached here. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry for the late reply, I forgot to add this page to my watch list) - after reviewing the policies at WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV I think the coverage you've provided does count as "significant". Specifically, WP:NFILM says that plot summaries do not count - but these also include critical comments. I think, together, they create significant coverage. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 03:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as overall there is enough critical commentary from independent reliable sources identified in this discussion such as Collider, NSTER, and Mental Floss to enable the pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Dynasty

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

I don't see how WP:NCORP is met given the sources in the article, and I wasn't able to find sources that would be enough to establish notability either. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Underground

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

There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to founder William Lustig. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that releases from this boutique label appear in Sight and Sound best of the year lists[7][8] (among other things) should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --wooden superman 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is notable enough (though the article could use some sources that help establish this fact, like the ones my colleague above found).TH1980 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to meet NCORP, but could do a redirect to William Lustig as a compromise.-KH-1 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Lustig as a viable ATD per nom. and KH-1. Fails WP:NCORP. WP:NOPAGE applies. Sal2100 (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

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

WP:NOTCATALOG. Most home video lines have already been deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination), etc.) --wooden superman 14:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST applies and WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."; as for notability, the release of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay has historical value and a chronological list of those films helps document what has been recognized as a valuable contribution to the history and preservation of film: the page documents that in a clear way. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the label itself is notable, the list of films that they licensed for release is not. This is just a catalogue, and largely unreferenceable. It's not like they had any hand in the production of any of these films. Catalogues of way more notable reissue labels have already been deleted, see the linked discussion above and many more similar ones. This is just WP:FANCRUFT. --wooden superman 19:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but my point is precisely that the list itself has value. I could add references to every item and remove those ”unsourceable” if indeed there are any. Later maybe. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cyberpower7 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Note: Struck comment from blocked user. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; @Cyberpower7 you might want to elaborate if you wish that your !vote receives attention, though. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how encyclopedic is the listing of their 2003 DVD re-issue of The Railway Children for example? Sure, examples of their really notable releases can be and are approriately included at Anchor Bay Entertainment, but including their entire WP:CATALOG here is WP:LISTCRUFT. --wooden superman 12:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note the following other examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 88 Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Video USA Releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Film Institute releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. No reason to make an exception to WP:NOTCATALOG here. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete useless listcruft. This is not original releases, hence no lasting value. --Altenmann >talk 19:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This distributor simply does not produce any original content themselves. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must insist here: The history and timeline of the releases of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay is encyclopaedic and no "fancruft", whatever that word is supposed to mean. The fact that the films were obviously not original Anchor Bay productions is totally irrelevant! The timeline and scope are of historic value....https://deadline.com/2024/02/anchor-bay-entertainment-relaunched-1235827165/

new iteration of Anchor Bay Entertainment with the goal to curate a new library of films for distribution, projects that range from new release genre films, undiscovered treasures, cult classics, and remastered catalog releases.

(Bloody disgusting!: https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3800174/anchor-bay-entertainment-label-resurrects-with-new-horror/)

See list of articles in Variety; https://variety.com/t/anchor-bay-entertainment/

the company’s trademark to reboot it and release genre films and cult favorites, after Anchor Bay was included in Starz’s 2016 sale to Lionsgate.

(Variety; https://variety.com/2024/film/news/anchor-bay-entertainment-cursed-in-baja-1236078418/

The only thing that could be discussed imv is whether this can be merged back into the article, and I don't think that, sizewise, it should.

Also see GBooks where individual or grouped releases by AC as a project are covered; and open, New Blood: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Horror. (2021) University of Wales Press, p. 115.

Just having a brief look, seeing it's a list and dismiss it as "Listcruft" is certainly not enough. Yes, there's work to be done. But that's not a reason for deletion.Mushy Yank (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources seem to indicate the topic of the list was covered as a set, meeting Wikipedia:NLIST, by the way. Mushy Yank (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I must insist that this is textbook WP:NOTCATALOG. As I mention above, giving examples of individual notable releases in the main article is encyclopedic. Listing every release WP:INDISCRIMINATEly is not, as you can see from the large number of precedents in the other discussions I have mentioned. --wooden superman 12:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

giving examples of individual notable releases is not what I did (your question above, on the other hand, was about one particular film's release...). The large number of AfDs you listed may or may not be comparable with the present one; but that does not change the fact that my point is that this list is encyclopaedic in my view as offering a timeline of the history of the release of rediscovered film and the sources mentioned by me are meant to prove just that (the quotes are about the topic of the list as a set not about the individual entries and just read the page 115 of New Blood and other GBooks hits, please, thank you). I'm leaving it that that because I have the feeling that I am repeating myself here. Mushy Yank (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Stickell

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

I don't think that this character is notable. This article has 10 sources, of all are not reliable and passing mentions. It was recently tagged for notability and there is no help at all. My WP:BEFORE failed to show anything about him. If he isn't fixed, i recommend a redirect to List of Mission: Impossible characters or at worse, Ving Rhames.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toby2023(talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Fictional characters. Toby2023(talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mission: Impossible (film series) as an WP:ATD. The List of Mission: Impossible characters is for characters from the original TV series; it omits the late-80s revival let alone the film series. The film series article is a better redirect target. oknazevad (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear a few more opinions on this article. By the way, the nominator didn't sign their statement but it was Toby2023.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Days

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

References do not prove the significance of the film. There are no references at all in Russian Wikipedia. There are also no awards or professional reviews.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 20:19, 31 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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NFILM indicates that a film can be considered notable if it is considered a major part in the career of a notable film personality; this is, as one of the sources on the page indicates, one of the most notable roles of Vera Alentova in her acting debut; it is also a noted role in the career of Nikolay Olyalin (again, a source is on the page); it is also, it goes without saying, a work that features significant involvement of its director, Nikolai Litus. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I just don't find coverages or even critical reception that suggest passing of WP:NFILM. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there. This exactly is the problem with this entry, there's just nothing to write about this film that would require a standalone page, whether it features significant involvement by a notable person or not. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but, in this case, are you opposed to a redirect and merge to the page about Litus? And don't you thing adding the cast and the plot there would clutter up the biography? If you think that's OK I can support that solution too. But allow me to insist that the film is noted as an important part in the career of the 2 actors mentioned above as well. Also, coverage related to Alentova in Страсть (2009) (Эксмо) and Вера Алентова. Москва слезам не верит.... (2017) (Алгоритм) and a whole entry about the film in Жизнь замечательных времен: шестидесятые. 1966. Том III. (2022) (ЛитРес), p. 487 (2 paragraphs) At least. Mushy Yank (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank I am not opposed to a redirect (targeting Nikolai Litus). But I don't think merging contents from this article with any of the actors would make sense, so I am opposed to that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (but then I suppose you agree that merging would "clutter up the biography"... which makes the concerned NFILM criterion rather more valid imv.). Mushy Yank (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the age of the film, I would expect sources on this work to predominantly be offline. In searching in Russian and Ukranian, I'm getting hits in google books in film reference works, but unfortunately they aren't viewable. It could be there is significant coverage in those materials. I would imagine that Soviet era media would have covered the film, but accessing newspaper archives of the Soviet Union era is difficult. Given that both the director and star of the film are independently notable, I would hesitate to delete an article on the film. I think its likely SIGCOV exists offline.4meter4 (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see that 4meter4 hasn't gone so far as to record their argument as a keep !vote, but I find it persuasive enough, along with Mushy Yank's comments. If there is some reason why this would be harmful to keep around -- eg, if we don't have any content that meets WP:V -- then I think we could argue for deletion, but seeing none I don't see any strong reason not to keep this stub. -- asilvering (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment Asilvering. I only vote keep at AFDs when I actually have located significant coverage which is why I am abstaining from voting in this discussion at present. Let's just say this in not an article I would have brought to AFD.4meter4 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Woody

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

Completely unreferenced article about a short film, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all automatically notable just for existing, and have to show reliably sourced evicence of passing one or more notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the attempted notability claim here is an unsourced table of awards from minor film festivals whose awards aren't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a film from having to have sources. (And the most notable film festival in the table is one where it's pulling the "nominee for film festival award that was wide-open to every single film in the program and didn't actually curate any special shortlist of finalists" stunt that Wikipedia editors often pull to oversell a film's passage of "notable because awards" -- which, therefore, also cannot be an "inherent" notability freebie without sources explicitly stating that the film was actively "nominated" for the award either.)
The film, further, also cannot claim "inherent" notability just because you've heard of some of the people in the cast list -- notability is not inherited, so even a film with famous people in its cast still has to pass WP:GNG on its sourcing. A Google search, further, turned up nothing useful, finding only directory entries, primary sources and a single glancing namecheck of this film's existence as a prior work by the director in an article whose primary subject was a different later film rather than this.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have any sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 27 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) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage exists in various languages. See GBooks please. Mildly notable awards and nomination. Extremely notable cast and director. A redirect to the latter is totally warranted. Willing to improve this later. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did check Google Books: I'm not getting WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the film, I'm just getting glancing namechecks of its existence in filmographies and directories.

An award only supports a film's notability to the extent that said award can be referenced to GNG-worthy media coverage that treats the award presentation as news. An award has to itself be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so an award only supports notability if it's referenced to WP:GNG-worthy media reportage, and does not support notability if it's either unreferenced, or referenced solely to primary source content self-published by a directly affiliated entity (such as either the film festival's own website or the film's own marketing materials). But the awards here are all completely unsourced, and my BEFORE searches did not find any GNG-worthy referencing that could be added to support the award claims.

"Nominations" also have to be properly supported by GNG-worthy media coverage, because that's highly prone to promotional manipulation. I see this happen all the time with the Toronto International Film Festival, for example: films frequently try to make the notability claim that they had been "nominees" for the People's Choice Award, but that's not an award that actually has "nominees" — every feature film in the festival program is automatically eligible for People's Choice by simple virtue of being present in the festival program at all, so being eligible for that award is not a meaningful or notability-bolstering distinction. There are obviously some exceptions, such as the Palme d'Or at Cannes or TIFF's Platform Prize, where the film played in a special competitive program that was curated to compete for a special prize that most other films at the festival weren't in contention for — for awards like that, "nomination" is a valid notability claim, but for a regular non-competitive "every film at the festival was automatically eligible for consideration" award, "nomination" is not a distinction, so an award nomination requires GNG-worthy sourcing to demonstrate that the award was a special competitive program with a curated shortlist of nominees, and not just an "every film in the program was automatically eligible for consideration" award.

Neither the notability of cast members nor the notability of the director constitute inclusion freebies that exempt a film from having to pass GNG just because there are notable people being wikilinked in the body text, either. Bearcat (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now sufficiently well-"GNG-worthy"-sourced to show the featurette meets NFILM ("The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career, for example") and GNG (has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources) and that there's no apparent reason for deletion. See for yourself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I am obviously talking about Grant Heslov when I mention the film is an important part in their career (not Clooney or Aniston.... See the two LA Times articles, one by Mary McNamara, a Pulitzer Prize winner.) Mushy Yank (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the nominator, I am getting only brief mentions. The most that I could find was the nice but short paragraph in the Pratt DVD book. Unfortunately the other books that are listed as sources in G-Books are ones with no preview, and a web search turns up IMDB and various user-created film sites. There is a source only for one of the awards. As for Clooney and Aniston, their roles (listed in the Pratt paragraph as cameos) aren't enough to make this short film significant. Lamona (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the Pratt DVD book, I found a newspaper article about the film in the Palm Beach Daily News. It's fairly brief, but detailed and entirely about the film. Toughpigs (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Medha Sharma (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Trick mode (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)

Templates