Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

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

Related deletion sorting: Comics and animation; Anime and manga; Actors and actresses

Film

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby Castellano

All of the information is unsourced, and I can't find a proper source myself. Most of it seems to come off of IMDB. Plus, irrespective, a sound technician would have to be fairly high profile and not just worked on a few films to meet notability standards. -- SonicAD (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom NN and unsourced Dreamspy (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he were a pioneering sound technicial (in any country), what breakthroughs/techniques did he pioneer? There's nothing to indicate this. It is rare for a sound technician to obtain notability on his own (Treg Brown is the only one that comes to mind), and working on notable motion pictures is insufficient for establishing notability behind the scenes. B.Wind (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7, only one author has made significant contributions to the article and has requested deletion (see last comment on this AfD). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hills Have Eyes III (2008 Film)

After having the proposed deletion tags removed several times by the article's creator, I've decided to create a consensus. I propose that this film article should be deleted because there is no sources or any other official information to say that the film is in production. If the film is announced, and there is reliable sources, the article may then be recreated. I have found not one shred of evidence to suggest the film is being made, which violates WP:NOTFILM and WP:CRYSTAL, and the article creator can seem to give no official source. Therefore the article should be deleted.--EclipseSSD (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFF/WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate this film is actually being made, certainly with a 2008 release. No prejudice against recreation at a later date if and when such a film is actually announced or released. 23skidoo (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per 23skiddoo. X Marx The Spot (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films; a search engine test shows only rumblings back in February 2007. If there's any verifiable coverage about this possible project, it should go to a film series article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of this article, i actually now think it should be deleted. I created it because the wikipedia article for Fox Atomic Studios said it was under production and set to be released in 2008 or 2009. That's the only source i had and it should be deleted. I've already placed a section in the Hills Have Eyes Series about an upcoming remake. LukeTheSpook (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - There is a clear consensus here for "not" keeping, the question becomes whether a redirect is warranted. I find consensus on that matter to be slightly in favour of not redirecting at this time. --++Lar: t/c 18:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schism (film)

The article isn't noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia. StaticGull Talk 15:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy under G11 if possible, nothing but someone spamming their YouTube video. Nothing at all notable there.Collectonian (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there are better sources for its notability. There are many more Fitna-related clips and this one doesn't appear more important than any of the others. (Although it is not bad.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fitna (film). There has been some reaction, and I have included that link on the main page. However, there is not enough reaction to warrant a full article.StephenBuxton (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I have done a google search and found a few hits, however, most of it is youtube. There are outside links so the redirect will be more appropriate than a delete, that is if we are following the notability policy. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above as well. I agree, this film isn't notable enough to stand on its own, but as it relates to a notable film, it's legitimate to add it to the reaction section of the main article. (The issue can always be revisited in future should Schism achieve independent notability, of course i.e. winning an award or getting major press coverage on its own, etc). 23skidoo (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect as a redirect would be misleading. No prejudice towards recreation if this becomes the subject of (not just a tiny mention in) multiple credible articles. gren グレン 10:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect Not notable. Fitna is notable, because author is well known politician, but this is really without any influence etc. Yopie 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
Delete Not notable, and no redirect.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Hardly consensus but the only achievement of notability in the article is directing an award-winning film, Festive Land: Carnaval in Bahia. A single achievement of note is generally not enough to sustain a WP article on an individual. Pigman☿ 05:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Moraes-Liu

Curriculum Vitae, using Wikipedia as webhost. In Portuguese Wikipedia it is also under AfD: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Carolina Moraes Liu Tosqueira (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Spam. One more votation on pt:wp. Alex Pereira 14:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was another Afd one year ago: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Carolina Moraes Liu_1 and the article was deleted in pt wiki. Tosqueira (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Does not meet notability requirements per WP:Notability and WP:BIO. Dgf32 (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Dgf32 (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"'Note"': Apparently, there is a Brazilian user trying to get some articles deleted for personal reasons. The user that nominated this article, Tosqueira, is Brazilian, as noted by another Brazilian user, Christian Bitencourt at the pt discussion. Tosqueira only contributions to wikipedia has been in Table Tennis, and he has been called attention for deleting and changing contents. The example is also in the pt disccusion in this link [[1]] .
Also note that TosqEIRA nominated this article right after Alex PerEIRA did it for the pt site. And Alex Pereira was the first one to vote here. All this info is on the pt discussion at this moment. Song2myheart (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Song2myheart[reply]
- Comment I've reviewed the issue again in light of your comment. In this case, the motivation of the editor who nominated this article for deletion is irrelevant. There are no independent sources available to establish notability or to verify content. Dgf32 (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this article is not necessarily spam, the subject is non-notable. No sources available to establish notability. Dgf32 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that TosqEIRA nominated this article right after Alex PerEIRA did it for the pt site. And Alex Pereira was the first one to vote here. All this info is on the pt discussion at this moment.
— Song2myheart

Do you think I'm Alex? Do you wanna "CheckUser"? LMAOTosqueira (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 05:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illmanic

WP:COI crystal ball gazing by interested party Herostratus (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet notability requirements per [[WP:Notability[[ and WP:Notability (films). Dgf32 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect per consensus to Accepted. Content history will be intact at redirect page per GFDL and for mining. Not merging. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Harmon Institute of Technology

Wholly constitutive of plot, referenced solely to primary sources; no reliably sourced evidence of notability. Article appears to have had several attempts at redirection; apparently the subject of some personal attacks and incivility. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a sub-article of the Accepted article or merge into the Accepted article. Many of the reviews [2] [3] for the film Accepted can be used as sources in this article. As far as fictional colleges go, I'd say this is notable. --Pixelface (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Accepted. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Accepted and protect it. The movie is of course notable and contains sufficient information about this college and it's hilarious acronym - the fictional college is not - the article is rammed chock full of original research and useless plot synopsis trivia. Neıl ☎ 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm only going to say it once here: Oh, if you want it to be possessive, it's just "I-T-S," but if it's gotta be a contraction, it's "I-T-apostrophe-S." (Thanks, Strong Bad) Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Accepted but Do Not Merge - Information on this location can be adequately covered in the plot section. It doesn't hold sufficient notability as a fictional location to need it's own section in the Accepted article. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says? Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the movie article. While the movie is notable, the college isn't. Nearly all information contained in the article is plot trivia and it's written in a way that makes it seem as if it isn't even a fictional place. Even if the college was notable, it'd require a substantial rewrite. --clpo13_(talk) 20:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article clearly states the college is "fictional." Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only in the introductory paragraph. The rest of the article is written in an "in-universe" style. --clpo13_(talk) 17:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. As might be expected, the "S.H.I.T." is not a real institution, but a joke made as part of the movie Accepted. Sorry, Rejected! Mandsford (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it's not real is irrelevant. We have lots of articles on fictional institutions. --Pixelface (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're smart; I like you. Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are as bad as the characters in the film from Harmon college. Your kind of thinking is exactly what the theme of the movie sought to speak against. Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a real school, no need to merge. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither is Starfleet Academy or many other fictional colleges and universities that are somehow escaping persecution from Jakezing. Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes but Star Trek is of much more importance then Accepted, wouldn't you agree? Star Trek defined a generation of people who never got a wife... --Jakezing (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not that it matters, though i was the one who tried to redirect it to accepted and ended up in a edit war to keep it that way. As i'v stated, no merit, could merge maybe.--Jakezing (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Most of the article is based off of the plot of the movie- no need for it to be separate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a decision yet?--Jakezing (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussions generally go for 5 days. Since this was opened on April 11, it should be closed on April 16. --clpo13_(talk) 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all plot information can be covered in the film. The specific details of a film need to be supported by real-world context; otherwise, the film is available to be watched. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Following this logic, we should get rid of Wikipedia altogether, since all of the information is available elsewhere. If articles should be deleted just because the films they describe are available, this would be a pretty empty site. As has been said before, there are many fictional places/colleges/people here. Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. Why are you all listening to the illiterate user who started all this? You are as bad as the characters in the movie who tried to shut down the college! Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to reread Wikipedia:Civility & WP:NPA. If your wondering why... calling somebody a illiterate user i is kinda, bad don't you agree and just makes you look so "Unprofessional" and makes less room to support, no?--Jakezing (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop calling people "illiterate" when they become worthy of such a distinction. For God's sake, the way you talk gives me a headache--honestly. The Queen should be beating you with her purse for butchering her language. Dgmjr05 (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not contributors, Dgmjr. --clpo13_(talk) 17:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to adequately converse with contributors who ignore the simple rules of the English language. I am continually asked to read Wikipedia's rules and that is deemed acceptable; but when I ask someone to learn English, that is deemed not acceptable. Wow! Can you say, "double standard?" Dgmjr05 (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Once more information is released as it goes into production then it can be recreated. It doesn't meet our standards right now though. Wizardman 17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manson Girls

Future film that is in the real early stages. Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NFF. brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable film starring notable actress(Lindsey Lohan). I changed the source to a reliable one. Searching lohan+manson on brings up 95 google news hits. --Smashville^BONK! 19:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF requires a source that shooting has begun. Until then, everything should be merged to Charles Manson or Linsday Lohan. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's listed on IMDB; I've added the link to the article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge → Charles Manson#Manson and culture and tag with Template:R from merge. Echoing User:Brewcrewer, general consensus as reflected in guideline is that future films are not sufficiently notable for stand-alone articles until they have started shooting. Included in the reasoning behind this is that once shooting has started, contracts are in place and money is certain to be on the table and actors are committed and must (should) decline conflicting offers, so that terminating the film or going forward with it each have documented and notable outcomes. However, there is little reason to deleted the content, which is why I suggest the merger. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge relevant content as per WP:NFF and above comments. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lindsay Lohan per Brewcrewer. In this case, IMDB simply states that Lohan's participation is "rumored" (and no further), thus it cannot for the time being be used as a "reliable source" here (some would argue that IMDB is not a reliable source at any time, but that's beside the point here). The Herald-Sun article is the only one shown in the article; independent, multiple sources are needed. The merge will be best until there is enough to satisy WP:V without making a crystal ball article. B.Wind (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.k.a Jersey

Non-remarkable film produced by amateur film director and none of the maker's have articles. No reliable sources and currently the article very clearly fails WP:MOVIE. The Dominator (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been in list of film-related deletion discussions The Dominator (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also non-notable.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 04:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film. Appears to have been produced by an independent film company, and the director and actors are also non-notable. The IMdB source doesn't give indication of notability either. PeterSymonds | talk 07:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Per the notability guidelines for future films, stand-alone articles should not exist unless the films have entered production, which is never a guarantee. Any limited detail about this project can be placed on the director's article at Edgar Wright#Upcoming projects. Another of Wright's project, The World's End, was similarly deleted recently as seen here. In addition, Empire reports: Although Cera couldn’t say too much about what Edgar’s planning for the movie, he did fill us in as best he could. “Filming hopefully in the fall, that’s when they’re trying to go,” said Cera (although the impending actors’ strike may have a lot to do with the movie’s ultimate fate). Clearly, there is uncertainty about this project actually entering production, hence WP:NFF's threshold. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User can re-post with references if/when it becomes the much hoped for blockbuster hit.Renee (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF - too soon for this. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there an advantage to deleting the article as opposed to merging it into Scott Pilgrim? The latter would make it easy to restore the full article if the film begins production. --DocumentN (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea. You could create a "Film adaptation" section there and link to it from Edgar Wright's article for more details. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per WP:NOTFILM.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edgar Wright#Upcoming projects. Any material needing to be merged will remain in the page history. The redirect can be converted back into an article when production of this film is confirmed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge. I merged the content to Trioxin (Return of the Living Dead), which seemed a more appropriate location than the general film series article.--ragesoss (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Horace Glover (Return of the Living Dead)

Delete article about character with insufficient notability. Content of article is redundant to other articles. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film series article and perhaps establish a "Recurring cast" section for characters who appeared throughout the films besides this one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable fictional character, or possibly merge if there is an appropriate place to do so. Terraxos (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Erik. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge. I redirected the article to Trioxin (Return of the Living Dead), which already contains all the content of this article, and is a more appropriate location than the general film series article.--ragesoss (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darrow Chemical Company (Return of the Living Dead)

Delete article about fictional company in Return of the Living Dead. The fictional company is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Content is redundant to articles about the film series. Doczilla _STOMP! 05:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film series article and try to clarify how the company has had a role in each film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Erik. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Film Proposed deletions

For future film notifications, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films/Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

for occasional archiving

Diner Dash (film) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Deleted
In the Crease (film) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Deleted
The Whale Hunt (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Deleted
Nava Vasantham (via WP:PROD on 15 December 2007) Deleted
Lord of Darkness (via WP:PROD on 14 December 2007) Kept, then taken to AFD
Short Circuit 3 (via WP:PROD on 7 December 2007) Deleted