Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Film|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Film. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch
Scan for Film AfDs

Scan for Film Prods
Scan for Film template TfDs

Related deletion sorting


Film

[edit]
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 WP:SNOW. The consensus seems clear that this is far too soon for an article. Prior to the content being changed to point people towards the draft copy, the article was a single paragraph. The draft is more fully fleshed out, so there's nothing to merge into it. This can be moved once it passes NFF, but for now no filming has started. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Odyssey (2026 film)

[edit]
The Odyssey (2026 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is this draft available? Jeffy7Jeffy (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes it is. KingArti (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fixed nomination which was malformed and was created at the wrong title. @KingArti: Please be careful when creating new AfDs, you can use the Twinkle gadget which automates the whole process. CycloneYoris talk! 23:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support of what? Delete or draftify? 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 04:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Juba Film Festival

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

Current article is promotional, author has been blocked for copyright violations. I could not find a single source giving SIGCOV that is independent of the subject. Does not appear to be notable. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facing the Enemy

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. There are no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centipede!

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

Simple google news search yield one result related to the movie Here from Yahoo News. It both fails WP:NFP and WP:NFO. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of yellowface

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

This is a messy case of what should be named List of media featuring yellowface. Like many such lists, it is poorly referenced, and fails WP:NLIST. Even through the list has a 'notes' column, for many - most - entries there is no explanation/commentary why they are included here (nor reference). This is a messy WP:OR. What little can be salvaged here could perhaps be merged to Portrayal of East Asians in American film and theater, which is where yellowface redirects too, but I doubt there is much we can use here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AED Studios

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

Contested PROD; likely WP:UPE for a company that fails WP:NCORP. In reviewing the sources in the article, they don't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Most are WP:ORGTRIV about location openings, capital raises, etc. ([1], [2]). There is also a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A with the CEO ([3], marketing content from a company that installed chargers in AED Studios' parking lot ([4]) and a story that doesn't mention the company at all ([5]). Finally, the article also uses stories from a site that exists to promote Flemish entrepreneurs (see their About Us, which roughly translated says: "We are proud of entrepreneurial Flanders.... We are on the side of these entrepreneurs, to strengthen and encourage them, to ignite their entrepreneurial fire... Our news reflects the optimism of the entrepreneur." This is obviously not an independent source. [6], [7]). A WP:BEFORE search turned up only press releases and more ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD was nominated at the same time with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Roggeman, both should be combined. IgelRM (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the notability guidelines that apply to the subjects are different. I agree that they are both non-notable but we should discuss them in different threads. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - see extensive file on this topic here. Concerns cross wiki promo spam about two business men, Glenn Roggeman who owns a media complex, AED Studios, which hosts events and the other one, Jan-Willem Broere, who organises commercial media events Septimius Awards and Isis Fashion Awards which are marketed and promoted as prestigious award ceremonies. Done cross wiki with a extensive serial sock farm who promote the persons, the company and the events. Hoyanova (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayer's unrealized projects

[edit]
David Ayer's unrealized projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik: at Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". I no longer see these pages being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Why proceed with a single AFD case now, as opposed to having an RFC to determine if such articles are appropriate, and with what criteria? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the dialogue with Zander on Guadagnino's, it's become clear these pages are purely just seen as trivia. Some very few unrealized projects are indeed are of interest, but when looking at the page, and it's largely "X announced plans to make X, but never did", it just doesn't scream as being a vital article to have. Terry Zwigoff's unrealized projects is particularly exemplary of this. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Perfectly standard. Sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A page having sources doesn’t make the topic of value. It’s a list of films that never happened, or didn’t happen with the person, which makes their involvement with it both not that important to the person, or the project. Why does a list of that need to be on Wikipedia as its own page? Where does this end then? Does this open the door towards “Tom Cruise’s untaken roles”? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Wikipedia article per WP:SYNTH. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic fightpicking.

Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects

[edit]
Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik:, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". Having created this particular article myself, I no longer see this page being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A perfectly standard page, with sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: A good article, well formatted and written out and perfectly and completely worthy of it's own existence, with enough projects to constitute having an article of it's own to compile them all. Therefore, it is indeed a "page of note" and unworthy of deletion. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Luca Guadagnino – similar to my !vote at the AfD for David Ayer's unrealized projects, these types of projects can be covered better within the context of the filmmaker's entire career (see WP:PAGEDECIDE). Some of these projects are fairly trivial and could be cut, but that can be resolved through normal editing and discussion processes. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of projects is too vast to merge. And too many of them are "of note" to warrant "cutting" as you suggested. As I've said before, this belief of "irrelevance" of these articles is just incorrect. I see no difference than if it were a career biography. In a career bio, bits and pieces of information are taken from various sources to sum up a person's career, and for an Unrealized Projects page, various pieces of information about films/projects that were unproduced are taken and compiled together. A career bio, should include information from that person's career, and ideally, if they're a filmmaker, have a note or background on every film they made. This is true of most articles. Every film is listed out and explained in order. So therefore, for a page which Unrealized Projects is the main subject, everything should be included that is KNOWN. Just as with a career biography ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The page size of Luca Guadagnino is about 2500 words; this page is about 1500 words, which could easily be fit into that article (the general threshold to consider a WP:SIZESPLIT is somewhere around 6000 to 8000 words). And many of these sections could be trimmed; we don't need beat-by-beat details of the production history (actor announcements, writer announcements, etc.). For instance, there is as much coverage of Rio here as there is about Bones and All in the main biography, even though the former was just an announcement and the latter was a project he saw all of the way through. Hence why I feel this information could be incorporated into the main article about his career. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I feel there are so many that they warrant having their own page. Many and several of these projects have also been mentioned in MANY outside sources "as a group or set" and therefore satisfies WP:LISTN. Case in point. I'm just a broken record here at this point. No special reason for this article to be deleted. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The article is written appropriately and the current definition of "unrealized" is quite vague. Deleting this article would also give the precedence for deleting dozens of other articles that have the same features, such as Martin Scorsese's Nils2088 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nil2088 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTN. This list has been discussed “as a group or a set” at ThePlaylist.net and The Film Experience. The Film Creator (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that The Film Creator (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
    I don't think those websites are referring to this page, they're referencing the projects independently. Wikipedia is not mentioned in either source. Rusted AutoParts 18:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The projects have been discussed as a group or set and published in articles, and are therefore worthy of having their own Wikipedia page. That was the entire point. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They literally said "This list"..... Even then, just talking about a failed project doesn't make the histroy of that project that important, unless the project is a long gestating one. Such as the production history for The Flash, or the development on the Akira live action remake. Rusted AutoParts 19:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As in, the actual projects featured on "this list". ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See the expansion of my comment. Rusted AutoParts 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's an opinion. More information could come into light in the future about each project. Some projects have loads of information, others do not. Just as career information in a career bio has an abundance of information, and others do not. This does not mean the others should not be included. Case in point. Since the projects are listed "as a group or set" in many, many, many other articles, the list passes WP:LISTN. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of Guadagnino's unrealized projects are tiny blurbs. The only ones that stand out as noteworthy are Find Me, maybe Scarface and Brideshead Revisited. Buddenbrooks, Lord of the Flies, Leading Men, Sgt. Rock and American Psycho are all projects he is still noted as working on, thus making them unapplicable to the page. Why is it pertinent to know that he was once attached to a film called Burial Rites in 2017, but nothing ever came of it? Why Swan Lake? Being a list doesn't inherently make it notable or necessary. We used to have a list of all the films granted permission to film during the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike, it was eventually removed because it wasn't noteworthy. Rusted AutoParts 19:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not aware of the last example you mentioned. I would agree with that removal, because the films were granted permission to be 'realized'. However I would pose the question if there is a section of all the projects that were officially cancelled and never picked back up again as result of the 2023 strike? That would be a section to warrant keeping/having. Again, I'm not sure how else to explain it, just like a filmmaker's career bio lists out the background of every film they worked on (no matter how little the film, compared to how big the film, or how little information there is on this subject, as opposed to the amount of information on the other), they should still all be included because it is apart of the director's career. The same is true of unmade films, if it was an idea they had and was mentioned in an article-list it, official offers-list it, a project they worked on for five years-list it, a one-off article mentioning a project they were attached to-list it, etc. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that @ZanderAlbatraz1145: is currently canvassing for votes. See here. Rusted AutoParts 19:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here as well. Rusted AutoParts 19:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again. 2 of the 3 messaged have voted inline with Zander. Rusted AutoParts 19:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Riley (fictional character)

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

Stub article with little prospect of significant additional content. Proposing a Redirect to Smile 2. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merged to the movie Smile 2. The article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability standards for fictional characters WP:FICT. Meritkosy 17:109, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - There are no sources to indicate that the character has come close to gaining enough notability that it would make any sense to have a separate article from the one for the one movie they appeared in. As the current article has no reliable sources cited, and contains nothing but a truncated plot summary for the movie, there is nothing to Merge. Skye Riley already Redirects to Smile 2, meaning this much less likely search term for the same name is not even useful as a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm finding little bits and pieces here and there, but so far I'm not really seeing where the character is independently notable enough for their own article. There are articles talking about how the character was developed or could be based on like this, this, and this, but it's not really the type of stuff that would show independent notability - it's more something that could be worked into the development section of the film, assuming that this info isn't already there. I think it's just a bit too soon for an article at this point in time - in most cases it takes a while for a character to really get enough steam to justify their own article. I'll hold off on an official argument until others have had a chance to look for sourcing, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rorshacma. There isn't the quantity/quality of sources you'd expect for this to gain notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello! I've updated the page and put more information about the character herself, including the development and reception of the character. Akariprescott (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of the added sources are not valid as reliable sources as they are user-generated wikis, and the third is a general review of the movie. I am afraid they really do not help the character pass the WP:GNG, or justify having a separate article from the film's article. Rorshacma (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smile 2. Viable AtD here and there's no harm in keeping the redirect around. Entirely non-notable but total deletion is unwarranted. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect because I don't think there's anything else we can really do with this page. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smile 2. The character alone has no notability outside the film, so a redirect would be ideal. Madeleine (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the concern subject lack notability and again there is no enough and reliable source to make it notable I think it should be merged with the film.

Kamand Amirsoleimani

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is available to establish notability. IMDb and MUBI are not reliable sources (WP:USERG). Nxcrypto Message 10:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section 108 (film)

[edit]
Section 108 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Upcoming film that doesn't meet WP:NFF. Could be moved to draft space, but there's nothing in the article to show how this meets NFF. Ravensfire (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Move to draft space or display maintenance tags for more verified sources which are available. WP:NFF state Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles ... However, this article provide information albeit from an individual's point of view. In addition [8] provide some context as well. QEnigma (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets NFF with the coverage about production; filming has started and is well advanced, premise known, cast confirmed, production issues mentioned. Even if it is never released it would remain a sufficiently-notable production. -Mushy Yank. 12:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Since we cannot enforce NFF to movies which have reliable sources confirming the start of principal photography/production after filming began, deletion is not warranted.--— MimsMENTOR talk 13:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see people bringing up NFF as far as production goes. I want to explain a bit about the requirements for an unreleased film establishing notability. To put it bluntly, production starting is not a sign of notability. The guideline is basically that people should not even consider creating articles for unreleased films unless production has begun. If production has begun then an article might be doable, however the article creator(s) would still need to establish how the production is notable in and of itself. In other words, if the film were to be cancelled today and production ground to a complete and total halt, would the current amount and quality of sourcing be enough to establish notability in the here and now?
The reason this came about is because for a while there Wikipedia has a rather big issue with people creating pages for announced films. No production is guaranteed, so there were quite a few films that were stuck in development hell. Names and companies might be attached or some other level of pre-production done, but it never led to any actual production.
As far as coverage goes, keep in mind that there has to be quite a bit and it has to be in depth. This is where it gets tricky, because marketing companies will flood media outlets with what is essentially the same content over and over again. They may announce a single name or change, but ultimately it's all coming from the same press release or statement. Right now the article's production section is non-existent and the current sourcing in the article is pretty paltry. I'm not saying that the film is absolutely non-notable, just that right now it's not really super convincing that this passes NFILM. I'm just concerned that the arguments for keep here are arguing that production has commenced but aren't really backing it up with sourcing to show where the production is notable. I'll see what I can do to expand this, but this really needs more/better sourcing than what is in the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded it but I'm still a bit uneasy saying that this passes NFILM. Production is completed, but there really wasn't a lot of coverage of the actual production. Most of it was either pre-production announcements or a rehash of pre-production announcements, stating that filming had started. Nobody really talked about the production. Everyone was pretty close mouthed about this. If this were to be an indefinitely shelved film (meaning the actual film was never released and it was used as a tax write-off), then I'm not certain that the current amount of coverage is really enough to establish notability for the movie.
I'm not against the film having an article, so it's not like I'm saying all of this because I'm a deletionist. (I lean more towards inclusion.) It's just that I don't think that the current coverage puts this comfortably out of reach of deletion, if you look at this from the perspective of "if this never releases or gets more coverage". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I agree with Reader's analysis above. Completing production doesn't in and of itself show notability, it's just a reasonable indicator that information showing notability likely exists. Here, though, no one has been able to show that is the case, so deletion is warranted. I'm at weak delete since the article certainly is doing no harm; it's not excessively promotional and the essentials of the article clearly are accurate. But it's unreleased, and there's no objective basis to say whether it ever will be, and it's standalone notability is wanting. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Mike (disambiguation)

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

There is only one topic with the name "Magic Mike." Plants vs. Zombies (disambiguation) was deleted for similar reasons. GilaMonster536 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

58 Seconds

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

Fails WP:NFILM; there's nothing from a cursory search to also substantiate notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyar Mori Re

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

Unable to find independent sources with significant coverage. The existing sources about and around "Saiyar Mori Re" are mostly routine coverage and paid PR/brand content, failing WP:NFSOURCES. I am also unable to find the minimum number of full length reviews, so it fails WP:NFILM entirely. The sources mentioned in the previous XfD are paid PR, as evident from the bylines and reviews from unknown websites/blogs. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, India, and Gujarat. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why was this added to the Actors and Filmmakers list? It's a film not a person. -Mushy Yank. 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: See precedent AfD and arguments presented by User:DareshMohan, for example. A redirect seems warranted anyway (same comment) so that I am opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 19:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Freelance journalist/blogger, Brand promoted content and an article from an unknown website with no byline? Can you please read the nomination statement and WP:NFILM guideline once again and consider revising your rationale to a policy based one instead of how you feel about deletion? Here are some more PR articles that they have given out: [9], [10], [11] Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please read DareshMohan's argument? Gujarat is not a "country" but I consider the film meets NFILM's inclusionary criterion #3, if you really wish me to provide a link to a guideline. I'll stand by my !vote, if I may. I've added a couple of things to the page, rapidly. -Mushy Yank. 20:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All you have added so far is just brand promoted content, routine coverage and passing mentions with no bylines. Nearly five years on Wikipedia, yet how you interpret WP:NFIC to fit your own views is astonishing.
    Here, "distributed domestically in a country" means distributed within India. This film didn't see the light outside Gujarat and we are not maintaining a database of films released in India, but rather of notable films released in India. Comparing WP:NFIC#3's weight of a film being released/distributed domestically in a country is nowhere close to that of a film being distributed within a state. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "didn't see the light outside Gujarat" is an absurd rationale. Indian cinema, being the largest producer of films globally, comprises multiple industries based on language and regional distinctions. The subject here being included in the Gujarati cinema, though less prominent than its counterparts like Bollywood or Tollywood, is still a significant part of this spectrum. Drawing a comparison between Gujarati cinema and the broader, more commercially dominant segments of Indian cinema is flawed. Keep in mind that Wikipedia:Notability is not a level playing field. — MimsMENTOR talk 07:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't bring essays here. If you want to change existing policies, start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films).
    The current guidelines only support films that are successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film-producing country. You have contradicted yourself by mentioning "Indian cinema, being the largest producer of films globally". WP:NFIC#3 does not apply to major film producing countries and if Saiyar Mori Re were a significant part of this spectrum, it would have received reviews in reliable sources. Instead, it only has paid PR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep your tone out! this is a discussion space, essays, statements, facts and all are legit here. — MimsMENTOR talk 09:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It seems the nominator has completely overlooked sources from TOI and other reputable outlets (which still lack full consensus on reliability). With that, giving an additional consideration and collectively reviewing the coverage's from the sources from TOI, TOI 2, TOI 3, One India and from the Gujarati media: navgujaratsamay, gujaratheadline and abtakmedia as well as the film's feature at the International Gujarati Film Festival 2023 is enough for notability.--— MimsMENTOR talk 09:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • TOI - Interview / Not independent / Pre-release coverage - Jun 14, 2022 (Part of PR)
    • One India - Partner content as indicated at the top - July 14, 2022 (Part of PR)
    • navgujaratsamay - Press release from trailer launch - Jun 27 (Part of PR)
    • gujaratheadline - Same as navgujaratsamay article / Press release from trailer launch - Jun 25 (Part of PR)
    • abtakmedia - Same as above / Press release from trailer launch - July 04, 2022
    • International Gujarati Film Festival 2023 - Trivial mention / no awards
    None of the above news media outlets covered or reviewed the film after its release. It seems you have overlooked both the sources and the nomination rationale. Would you mind sharing your source analysis below? Mims Mentor Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeraxmoira Before diving into a source analysis, could you clarify or provide evidence for your claim that each of all sources mentioned are "(part of PR)"? — MimsMENTOR talk 11:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of coverage following the film's release is sufficient evidence. Apart from that, the OneIndia article is marked as "Partner Content". As for the trailer launch, inviting all the news media is standard practice and has been done this way consistently. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point about the "partner content", I do agree with that. However, when I emphasized the need for "collective reviewing" and "additional consideration" of the sources. I recognize that the coverage may not be strong enough to 'firmly keep' the article, but your own analysis doesn't solidly push for deletion either, leaning more towards WP:BARE. As for PR evidence, there isn't concrete proof to back up that claim you made (when you are talking about policies). Pre-release/press release (earned media) coverage isn’t inherently promotional, and reputable outlets like TOI often feature pre-release interviews without the coverage being purely PR-driven. — MimsMENTOR talk 12:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are bringing in more essays to XfDs. Please understand that essays are not P&G and hold no significant value in XfDs. The TOI sources are insufficient for a standalone article, especially given that there are literally zero reviews available. There are three articles about the trailer launch featuring the same banner image, yet you believe this isn't sufficient evidence that the press was invited to the event. The sources here are nowhere close to meeting GNG or NFILM. If you disagree, please provide a source analysis that might help me better understand your point of view. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Essays arent binding, but they offer relevant interpretations in debates like XfDs, especially for borderline cases. Dismissing them outright doesnt negate their value in offering nuance. The TOI sources, while not extensive, still provide verifiable coverage. Prerelease coverage is common, even for non-blockbuster films. Moreover, you havent fully explained why multiple outlets covering the same trailer launch definitively proves PR involvement. The case is WP:BARE now. I believe I’ve made it clear what aspects of the discussion align with GNG, based on policy guidelines. The nominator seems fixated on a single point and dismisses valid considerations by labeling them "essays," which is unproductive. Since the conversation is going in circles, I’ll be stepping back. I suggest exploring more sources from Gujarati media to verify additional coverage of the film instead of narrowing the focus to a single angle.--— MimsMENTOR talk 14:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, no source analysis? Cool. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? to count in more essay? Sorry No! — MimsMENTOR talk 15:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These sources can be used to write an article, but they certainly do not meet the standards required to establish GNG and there are no sources available after the film's release. Regarding WP:NFILM, there are literally no reviews for this film, despite it being released in the internet era. The fact that all the sources below greatly appreciate the film, its songs, trailer and its success, yet none of them have published a review, is quite amusing.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movie-details/saiyar-mori-re/movieshow/92209803.cms Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/business/k-brothers-produced-saiyar-mori-re-wins-the-hearts-of-the-audience-as-anticipated-after-the-trailer-release20220713132245/ No Story is provided by GPRC (Global PR Connect) Yes ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/saiyar-mori-re-new-song-manda-lidha-mohi-raj-is-winning-hearts-on-the-internet/articleshow/92653580.cms No Entertainment Desk / No byline Yes Yes ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/mayur-chauhan-on-saiyar-mori-re-i-am-feeling-akhand-mauj-exclusive/articleshow/92200116.cms No Interview Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.zee5.com/articles/k-brothers-produced-saiyar-mori-re-wins-the-hearts-of-the-audience-as-anticipated-after-the-trailer-release No Story is provided by GPRC (Global PR Connect) Yes ✘ No
https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/2022/Jul/08/meet-kariyas-saiyar-mori-re-celebrates-rural-flavours-of-india-2474459.html No Express News Service / No byline Yes ~ ✘ No
https://www.oneindia.com/partner-content/jay-kariyas-debut-film-saiyar-mori-re-is-out-now-and-the-audience-can-t-get-enough-of-it-3433537.html No Partner content ✘ No
https://www.mynation.com/entertainment/film-saiyar-mori-re-wins-over-the-audience-despite-its-experimental-approach-filmmakers-express-sigh-snt-reuiuy No featured content / No byline ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/watch-saiyar-mori-re-makers-will-soon-drop-a-teaser/articleshow/92082623.cms No Entertainment Desk / No byline Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/gujarati-films-go-global/81859967.html Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/mayur-chauhan-unveils-the-first-look-of-his-saiyar-mori-re/articleshow/92034340.cms No Interview Yes No Routine coverage from an Instagram Post ✘ No
https://navgujaratsamay.com/love-story-based-film-saiyar-mori-re--a-turning-point-in-the-gujarati-film-industrys-history/221700.html No Trailer launch press release Yes ✘ No
https://www.gujaratheadline.com/%e0%aa%b9%e0%aa%b0%e0%aa%bf-%e0%aa%95%e0%aa%b0%e0%ab%87-%e0%aa%8f-%e0%aa%b8%e0%aa%be%e0%aa%9a%e0%ab%81/ No Trailer launch press release Yes ✘ No
https://www.abtakmedia.com/god-do-is-the-best-rural-areas-love-story-sayer-mori-re/ No Abtak Media / No byline Yes ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/the-international-gujarati-film-festival-igff-returns-with-its-4th-edition-in-chicago-usa-this-year-exclusive/articleshow/101098950.cms Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The best source I could find that wasn't clearly sponsored content was this, and IMHO that isn't enough. The other material is either sponsored, or less substantive. It's not nothing, though, and it's possible I am missing material in other languages, although I did search using the transliterated title. If the director or producer were notable, there is perhaps enough coverage to insert a few sentences into their biographies, but I see we do not have articles about them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Categories

[edit]

Templates

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Film&oldid=1264885753"