Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 19: Line 19:
==Film==
==Film==
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tattoo_(2014_film)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Blair_Witch_characters}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Blair_Witch_characters}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary's Baby (franchise)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary's Baby (franchise)}}

Revision as of 01:56, 12 September 2024

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

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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo (2014 film)

Tattoo (2014 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)

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM. No reviews listed. It was submitted to a lot of film festivals and won awards at some of them, but I think this is misleading. None of the film festivals are notable, as near as I can tell. And they give out a staggering number of awards, for example when I track down the "Award of Excellence Best Shorts Competition", this movie was one of 40 winners of that award for that month (yes, month, there were hundreds of winners of the award that year). For the next one, "Platinum Awards Filmmakers of the Year Film Festival", it was one of 15 winners of the apparently non-notable award that year. The next one "Platinum Award Best story Documentary & Short International Movie Award" sounds prestigious but it was one of 12 winners of that award that year. And those are just the winners at the top, soon it's just "official selection". I don't even see a single user review on sites like IMDB, let alone published reviews that could be used as sources. I don't mean to belittle the movie or these film festivals but they just don't seem notable. Here2rewrite (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator’s well-reasoned rationale. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. It's exceedingly difficult to establish notability for short films as the vast majority tend to fly under the radar even when they have notable persons involved and/or screen at major, well known film festivals. This one seems to have gone through the normal process with short films in that it was released, it went to various film festivals and so on. The awards aren't really usable as none of them are from outlets Wikipedia would see as major enough to give partial or total notability. None of the film festivals are major enough to give notability for screening there either. This is really limited more to things like Cannes's Un Certain Regard, where getting screened there is the equivalent of receiving a major award. I couldn't really find any other coverage either. It's possible that there is coverage that never made it onto the internet, but I can't find anything to suggest that this would really exist. Like the nominator said, this is no knock against the film or its creator, just that it doesn't pass criteria for NFILM, which isn't that easy to pass. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:09, 13 September 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.
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. Star Mississippi 02:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blair Witch characters

List of Blair Witch characters (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)

Does not meet WP:NLIST. All sources are primary and based on the books. Couldn't find anything on a search that discussed the characters as a group. Conyo14 (talk) 04:29, 11 September 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.
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. Even without discarding the !votes that read as little more than a personal attack, the Delete arguments carry far more P&G weight than the ones calling for keeping the article. Owen× ☎ 16:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary's Baby (franchise)

Rosemary's Baby (franchise) (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)

After consideration and researching the article myself, I can not find signifigant coverage of Rosemary's Baby as a franchise with a any serious depth. Despite the large amount of citations found in the lead and the amount of content within the article. MOS:FILMSERIES says series and franchise articles would "benefit from coverage that discusses the series as a whole", but we have only been pulling from individual film/tv/work reception and are lacking in material that discusses the entirety of the work. This is predominantly material repeating information already available on the unique film/TV/novel articles.

  • Two articles are primarily about the 50th anniversary of the first film. There is little discussion of it as a series or a franchise outside other briefs about the development of the film.
    • Woman's World has little discussion other than a sequel was made to the film, a follow-up was made to the first book, and a television series was adapted. But there is no real discussion of the franchise from a critical, analytical, or business matter. The articles does not refer to it as a franchise, series, or anything.
    • Mental Floss Similarly, is a list of 13 facts about the first film, some tangentially related to the other material related to either the film or novel.
  • Articles that praise the first film, and the announcement of a sequel/prequel/remake.
    • Collider and The Guardian articles primarily praise the first film, and announce a follow up is being developed. There is little discussion about the whole thing as a series/franchise, while boasting the quality of the first film.
    • Screencrush is probably the closest in detail to anything, but barely traces it mentioning the tv sequel and a miniseries version. No critical analysis, no history of the film's production as a series or franchise with just a brief mention of the cast returning or not returning for 1970s tv-entry.
  • Sources that call it a franchise fail WP:SIGCOV, as they are trivial mentions, that fail to "address the topic directly and in detail."
    • Comicbook.com states "The movie successfully launched a titular franchise, which includes a 1976 made-for-TV sequel, an upcoming streaming exclusive prequel (2024), and a television series adaptation." this is the only amount of depth applied and like the Guardian and Collider sources, are presented as press releases for sequels to give them prestige, there is no context to it as a series.
    • Sportskeeda seems to fail WP:RSP, and can be seen here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sportskeeda.

The rest of the article generally rehashes the history of the production of individual items. occasionally peppering in that Rosemary's Baby has been called the greatest [horror] film ever a few times and regurgitates material that is already available in the individual articles for the books, series and novels, and places them side by side with no commentary to why we are comparing them. This goes against WP:UNDUE as we have a lack of "depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." In this case, we have barely anything discussing it as a franchise and run with content that is just discussing one film or another and places no information on why we have to know this info or how it relates to each or if it was even important to this group of works. The same goes for the film gross, which lists the first film's gross, then restates it as a "Total" for the series and has no information on how much the novels or TV series, in terms of cost, production or anything. This is just regurgitating information from the first article.

Beyond this, the article presents original research such as an "Official Franchise Logo". At the same time, the logo in question on [on Wikimedia] refers to it as just the films logo, not a series or franchise. From my search, I've only seen it used for the TV adaptation and the original.

On searching books, websites, and the Wikipedia Library, I have found tons of content discussing the novel and first book, but nothing outside spare mentions like the above. I propose that the article be deleted or merged with a legacy section on the first novel and first film respectively for their respective content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. I'm surprised to have so many participants in this AFD given one of the longest deletion nomination statements I've come across. Glad it didn't discourage editors from voicing their arguments. I'm not chiding the nominator, it's just an observation. I see a lot of "Fails WP:GNG" or "Notability issues" deletion rationales so the fuller explanation is appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, "franchise" enough. Plus one forthcoming. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hyperbolick: the deletion suggestion is not enough that it exists, the commentary is about if there is enough discussion on whether there is enough signifigant coverage of the topic as a franchise, which this topic fails per the discussion above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As there has been votes, but little discussion. I'm going to bring up the essay WP:THREE. This is not wikipedia standard, but I think it will help me address what I'm trying to get across, specifically reading WP:SIGCOV and understanding it, and lastly it suggests after to "Look over your list of sources and find the three that best meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and whatever other guidelines people are citing.". While the editors above have commented that there are "more than enough sources" or simply ""franchise" enough", they did not seem to address the points I was trying to make. On that, I would welcome @Mushy Yank:, @Hyperbolick:, @StarTrekker:, @Dimadick:, and @Trailblazer101: (even though they seem to follow my train of thought, they should be invited to discuss) to come forward and show me how the sources or content follows the WP:SIGCOV rules, specifically ones that "address the topic directly and in detail." per WP:SIGCOV. This is in terms of discussing it as a franchise, over individual films, which is my bigger issue. All other comments and editors are welcome of course.Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: To follow-up, I have tagged several editors and asked them to follow-up on their original response to keep the article on September 23. Outside ★Trekker, there have been no responses that directly comment on my initial issues of WP:SIGCOV. I would also like to bring up WP:SNG which again highlights that we require "in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing". While Wikipedia:Notability (films) exists, it only goes into detail about individual films, not franchises for notability or content requirements. Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises seemingly has no developed standards. No source within the article discussing the film as a franchise, goes beyond a brief mention, from this, the article delves into comparisons about budget, cast, crew, and critical response which fails WP:WEIGHT, (specifically "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.") as none of these topics are brought up within the context of a franchise in any article discussing it this way. As the only editor to regularly respond has been the one mentioned above who has not really discussed content of the article, I propose WP:SILENCE which states that when other editors have no commented after being pinged, "their silence will be construed as agreement." Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think the supplemental page you refer to applies in the case of AfDs (see its scope of application, please), especially if other users are only pinged. I personally often remain silent in other AfDs, even when pinged or even when I receive a reply or a comment is addressed to me, when I think all has been said or when I dislike the tone/spirit of the question or comment or when I think the question or reply is not relevant or is disruptive. In the present case, to clarify, if you really wish me to do so, I simply would like to stand by my !vote, in which I have said all I thought useful regarding the issue you have raised. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I haven't responded to that, I am curious what you would add/change to the article if it were to remain as a WP:SETINDEX @Mushy Yank:? I don't think your idea is necessarily a poor one, but without context, i'm not sure what it entails. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant cuts (including whole sections maybe) should probably be discussed, as should renaming the page, but, again, that can happen on the TP of the article. I probably will not make any further comments on the present page. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair. Thanks for clarifying as the brief "Keep" and rule discussion beforehand did not really clarify what you think would be the best step going forward. I appreciate you taking the time to follow-up @Mushy Yank:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see any critical discussion of the franchise, a brief mention here [1], but a surprising amount of scholarly reviews of the Polanski film [2]... This appear to be a synth article, with little bits for each piece of media put together to build the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Strongly disagree with your proposition. Other editors are correct in pointing out that this has the stench of other situations you have done before (many are familiar with that history). There are a number or reliable sources that detail the franchise as a whole (see my talking points at Talk:Rosemary's Baby (franchise) #Sources for reference. With the release of Apartment 7A, there are additional sources that I will be adding there as well.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DisneyMetalhead:, a few points per WP:AFDEQ, I do not really appreciate of my editing has a "stench" of anything. As for your comments, I've already addressed your content, its not a lack of sources, its a lack of content within the sources. Per WP:SIGCOV, it fails to address the "topic directly and in detail", with an emphasis on the latter, all the information is pulled about the films individually. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:24, 29 September 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RadioactiveGiant

RadioactiveGiant (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:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The problem appears to be with WP:CORPDEPTH in particular, since there was only trivial coverage in virtually every source I found. The sources already in the article are IMDB or trivial announcements such as a business agreement or the opening of a studio. Tagged for notability since 2011. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 17 September 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.
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. Thanks for the great lengths some editors went to track down and check sources. But the source analysis is not successfully rebutted. If an editor wants to create a Redirect from this page title, feel free to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Khel Sawalyancha

Ha Khel Sawalyancha (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)

Cannot locate sources to show notability. There are a few mentions but nothing that amount to significant coverage. CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source analysis.
    • Source 1 is unreliable source and the listing is copied from imdb with reference to imdb. No significant coverage on the film.
    • Source 2 is same listing of cast, director, producer, musicians. No significant coverage.
    • Source 3 is a link to a song on YouTube video. Nothing significant here either.

I looked for sources online to get significant coverage and WP:NFILM but after 4 pages of search, I could not find any secondary independent reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I referenced two sources in Award section and noted a film in several Marathi books such as -.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Morekar (talk • contribs)
    @User:Morekar, the books you provided here aren't verifiable. Please read WP:OFFLINESOURCES and provide the full bibliographical details, most importantly, the page numbers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done.@SafariScribe Allows to verify the film was a great success according to sources (not to mention the cast, plot, themes, etc). Thank you for your concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. None of the new sources with Google books links are verifiable. All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation with page number(s) to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. RangersRus (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I hate redirects being turned up after redirecting and I would prefer deletion to an obviously non notable article. While we try to save an article as much as possible per WP:ATD, we should be careful to avoid leaving non notable ones as redirects (my opinion). This article, to all eyes, doesn't meet WP:NFILM and if the casts are notable, then there should be a bit, atleast, WP:SIGCOV. Bearing the lack of SIGCOV in mind, I would be ready to redirect to the director's article (who also clearly doesn't meet WP:NDIRECTOR) if reliable sources that could be used to verify the cast and crew of the film are provided. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are imv sources on the page to verify partially the cast and crew. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All the changes have been reviewed and analyzed in my last note. RangersRus (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of them, indeed, the Gbooks refs, are mentioned as a whole in your general note ("reviewed and analysed" is a bit of an overstatement, I’m afraid, as yourself stated you couldn’t access them, :D); but still, the page has significantly changed. Also see WP: Systemic bias, thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not surprised by your response. As i said earlier the so called "significant changes", the Google books fail verification with no page number and inline citation and that is my review and analysis about it if you could pay attention. See WP:V. RangersRus (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t mean to surprise you but I did pay attention, thank you; that is precisely why I think that calling your note a ’review and analysis’ of those sources is a tiny bit misleading. You just couldn’t access and verify them. It would be better indeed if we could, but again see the link that I provided above. The changes are significant, maybe not satisfactory, I agree, because we cannot check the full text, but significant, they are, and stating otherwise is also rather a little misleading. People who have visited the page before nomination can check it now and see if they can verify the added sources, for example or if they find them useful; hence my insertion of the template, which your comment tries to undermine unduly, in my view. If so-called should apply to something it is not to the 'significant changes', I should say. Consider this my final reply to you as I do not care very much for the tone of your last reply, to be honest. Thank you again for your reply and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you but it is no help and thank you for your final reply. Nothing significant as expected. RangersRus (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: a rapid check allowed me to verify 3 of the sources added through Gbooks (I added the page for 2 ). I see now even less reasons to doubt the veracity of the sources added by Morekar. I thought there might have been a transcription problem but no, the title in most of the cited English sources apparently corresponds to the title of the article. I’ll do my best to add the pages of other sources cited, though, as this might be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC) (I have added the pages to all of the significant references added by Morekar, that should now be considered verifiable and verified :D; I will not re-add the AfD changed template, though :D; )[reply]
How are these "significant references" again? Verifiability is not notability unfortunately. Are you able to show what RangerRus is requesting below? I am willing to withdraw the nomination if it turns out t be significant coverage but I cannot locate anything either. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took time and verified all the pages on each Google sources on the page and the claims it made (even though the onus is on the editor who adds the source to provide verification), there is nothing significant. No significant coverage in any source and even the source under reception is not even a review but just a passing mention. RangersRus (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was making that assumption based on no replies from previous requests as well. Thanks for taking the time. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:@Morekar: Can you please provide page numbers along with inline citation of what the sources actually say to check if it is just an entry or something significant. We need significant coverage and I googled but just found entries and nothing significant. If you can provide all the information that helps with the content for verification, it will help. RangersRus (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to verify all the sources you added and as expected nothing significant to pass WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD participants are invited, by the template inserted above in the discussion, to read the page and not simply assume or assert the changes are not significant and the sources add no weight to notability. A single source, for example, stating the film was a ’superhit’ (source wording) is significant per se. And denying it is at best bizarre.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a 'super hit' does not make something notable. It must be shown so through significant coverage. What is "bizarre" is that two editors have asked for the excerpts of those references that some are citing as significant yet nothing has been provided except assertions.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of whether the available sources provide significant coverage would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All Source analysis.
    • Source 1 Google snippet page 161, has an entry with film name, language of the film, color, length, name of director, producer, musician, and four cast members followed with "Woman fears servants ghost haunts bungalow." That's it. No significant coverage.
    • Source 2, Google Snippet page 130 has an entry with translation of the film title. No significant coverage.
    • Source 3, Google snippet page 22, has an entry, "crime thrillers (title of three different films, one of which is the subject)". No significant coverage.
    • Source 4, Google Snippet page 139 is by a filmmaker and scriptwriter of same industry and very likely a self published through "Maharashtra Film, Stage & Cultural Development Corporation" who are also the contributor, has passing mention "Ha Khel Savlyancha ( 1976 ) , a suspense thriller interwoven with a supernatural legend , be- came a superhit but could not wean the indus- try away from its famnily melodramas ." (That is exactly how family is misspelled). Keeping the unreliability question aside, still no significant coverage.
    • Source 5 Unreliable sources that is a blog indiancine.ma and the listing is copied from imdb with reference to imdb. No significant coverage on the film.
    • Source 6 is same listing of cast, director, producer, musicians. No significant coverage.
    • Source 7 passing mention of film critically and commercially acclaimed and one of the actor Jairam played memorable role in highest grossing film of the time. Not significant coverage on the film.
    • Source 8 is link to YouTube video of a song. No coverage at all.
    • Source 9, 10 are same books with Google snippet page 40, reads Best Music Director and best color photography for the film (does not mention awarded by who or what award show). No significant coverage anyhow.
    • Source 11 and 13 are snippets from same book with no page numbers. One snippet with entry of DVD release in 2009 and the other snippet in few words that the film "deeply rooted in the village life of Maharashtra". No significant coverage.
    • Source 12 is about one of the song from the film remade for modern audiences. Nothing significant again.

Entries, trivial and passing mention only and no source addresses the topic directly and in detail. RangersRus (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great analysis which just reaffirms (for me) that it exists, but verification is not notability. Thanks for doing the digging. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • General note: There is a generally accepted working consensus regarding released films with notable cast and/or made by a notable director (and/or including the participation of notable personalities (musicians, writers, etc). The said consensus is that such articles are redirected to a list of films by year/country or to the article about their director when they can, if reliable sources allow verification. When such films are mentioned as critical and/or commercial successes especially pre-internet films, and, again, given coverage allows verification, their cultural and historical significance is generally considered a sufficient reason to retain a standalone page. Either way, the consensus is that such pages are generally not deleted.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is not an issue but "not deleted" is not the same thing as "keep." WP:NFO says reiterates what you say but means that sources are "likely to exists" showing notability. Unfortunately, those sources do not exist here.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 26 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Blaxploitation. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blaxploitation (music genre)

Blaxploitation (music genre) (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)

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 2#Blaxploitation (music genre). C F A 💬 00:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Blaxploitation. There does appear to be some usage of it, but with little applicable depth. The soundtracks and scores of blaxploitation are of high important quality, the unique aspects of the music or its function as a genre seperate from funk or R&B and jazz other genres is not clearly stated in the article. If it can be, it can be fleshed out and we can see about it having a unique article that can stand on its own outside the films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:24, 11 September 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.
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. Complex/Rational 19:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Rossilli Jr.

Randall Rossilli Jr. (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)

The claim of notability as a media entrepreneur is weak and lacks the in-depth reliable and verifiable sources required to back up the claim. Recording songs for release on iTunes is an even weaker claim of notability, not does his work as a teacher reach any notability standard. I was unable to find any meaningful in-depth coverage for him in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 9 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Telugu films of 2023#October–December. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vidhi (2023 film)

Vidhi (2023 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)

Recently 123telugu was declared unreliable by the Indian cinema taskforce. Given that Indiaglitz is also considered unreliable, there are no reliable reviews (had there been at least 1, I would have let this slide). There was a FilmyFocus review on the page but that is also likely non notable (all unreliable sources can't be listed there). Given that the fact that the longest source is an interview from 123telugu, this film has no notability.

The TV9 Telugu source is a small snippet only mentioned that Vishwak Sen was invited for the film's launch while the NTV source mentions where the film is streaming. All in all, the only notable reliable source is the NTV source [3], which isn't enough to keep an entire Wikipedia article of a 2023 film. This isn't even a pre Internet film.

P. S. I had tried my best to improve the film's sourcing to no avail. DareshMohan (talk) 07:25, 9 September 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Shadows

Eastern Shadows (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:NBAND. I found no reliable sources about them. I see no verifiable claim of notability on the article. Badbluebus (talk) 23:57, 8 September 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.
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 keep‎. Closing as keep per consensus. !votes haven't been changed hence not a speedy keep close. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaalam Raasina Kathalu

Kaalam Raasina Kathalu (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. The film was moved to draft but recreated by another IP (likely the same person -- since it ia low budget film, WP:COI?)

The reason it was moved to draft is that all sources relate to Akash Puri releasing the film's trailer. This article shouldn't exist because the entire article is banking on the effect of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Marketing.

This source shows Akash Puri being given flowers beforing watching the film's trailer on a laptop [4]. How is any of this notable?

Regarding Bru Times, the source is obviously unreliable and a compilation of many sources. Although you may think it is a review, it says Upon its release, "Kaalam Raasina Kathalu" received critical acclaim for its storytelling, direction, and performances. Critics praised the film for its nuanced portrayal of complex human emotions and the depth of its characters.

If you want to know wheter Bru Times is reliable read another review like [5], ("has been praised", etc.) prove it is unreliable. DareshMohan (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:00, 15 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Jean-Claude La Marre. ✗plicit 11:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped: Haitian Nights

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

I PROD'd this article but it was de-PROD'd with a note to bring it to AFD so that's what I'm doing. When I did a search for sources, I just found IMDb and streaming services, along with the Wikipedia article. It looks like a direct-to-video production so I'm doubtful that there are any reviews or articles on reception of the film. There is not even a plot summary here. But I'm sure if reviews are out there, someone will bring them to this discussion. It just looks like a B-level (or Z-level) movie. Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 8 September 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.
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 keep‎. I see a consensus now to Keep this article. Thanks for continuing this discussion through its relisting. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mor Chhainha Bhuinya

Mor Chhainha Bhuinya (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)

A non notable films that doesn't meet WP:NFILM. No existence of WP:SIGCOV, and likewise, the remake. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, not seeing its notability. Sources are not RS. Ednabrenze (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out my vote/comment based on the analysis by other editors who have more knowlege about the history of the film and the latest sources presented by S0091. Ednabrenze (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi,
Keep kindly understand that 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' was 1st film to be made in local chhattisgarhi language in over 30 yrs. so no one believed in this movie to have successful run, as such there was virtually any coverage. but after its release thanks to word of mouth publicity the film became a blockbuster leaving behind 'Mohabatein' and 'Mission Kashmir' in the state. Today this film has acquired a cult status as it gave birth to Chhollywood, an entirely new film industry in the state. Remember 'Andaz Apna Apna' despite huge star cast the film was declared massive flop but today it has gained a cult status. As such wiki page on 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' too deserves a page in wikipedia. Whatever sources that have been added are the only sources available online besides youtube (which is not accepted here). Most importanly this page is the most complete and well prepared page on this movie unlike previous attempts. As such 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' wikipedia page should be kept. If anyone can help improve it they are welcome. Bonadart (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi, Ednabrenze kindly understand that 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' was 1st film to be made in local chhattisgarhi language in over 30 yrs. so no one believed in this movie to have successful run, as such there was virtually any coverage. but after its release thanks to word of mouth publicity the film became a blockbuster leaving behind 'Mohabatein' and 'Mission Kashmir' in the state. Today this film has acquired a cult status as it gave birth to Chhollywood, an entirely new film industry in the state. Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find mention. Remember 'Andaz Apna Apna', a wiki page on 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' too deserves a page in wikipedia. youtube has lot of info, but not accepted here. Most importantly this page is the most complete and well prepared page on this movie unlike previous attempts. If anyone can help improve it they are welcome. Bonadart (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry but you cannot !vote twice. Kindly remove one of your two "Keep"s in bold, please -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi actually i was giving a reply i will correct it Bonadart (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the analysis but keeping an article here solely depends on the number of reliable sources that could be used to verify claims made in the article. I am not from that state and I would not know the historical background of the film but if there had been enough RS sources I would not have supported deletion. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
solely depends on the number of reliable sources, yes and no, it also depends on what they say and if one reliable source proves the film is important in the local culture that can be considered a sufficient reason to keep the page. At least, that is my understanding. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only one source by Rediff that has some coverage and all other sources are poor and unreliable with director's recognition and announcement on the news of the sequel. I would also opt for Redirect but I am not sure where to redirect this page to. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RangersRus kindly understand that 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' was 1st film to be made in local chhattisgarhi language in over 30 yrs. so no one believed in this movie to have successful run, as such there was virtually any coverage. but after its release thanks to word of mouth publicity the film became a blockbuster beating 'Mohabatein' and 'Mission Kashmir' released same day in the state. Today this film has acquired a cult status as it single handly gave birth to Chhollywood, an entirely new film industry in the state (very few films can be credited for that anywhere in india), just this is strong reason to keep the page i think. Remember 'Andaz Apna Apna' despite huge star cast the film was declared massive flop but today it has gained a cult status. As such page on 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' too deserves a page in wikipedia. Whatever sources that have been added are the only sources available online besides youtube (not accepted here). Most importanly this page is the most complete and well prepared page on this movie unlike previous attempts. As such 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' wikipedia page should be kept. Bonadart (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We need reliable secondary independent sources with significant coverage to consider the page's notability and so far I have found nothing significant. Its important that we follow the wikipedia guidelines for notability. RangersRus (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    there is lot of informattion about the film in youtube, but point is, if it is accpted here Bonadart (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NFIC as culturally significant as one of the major hit films in the chhattisgarhi language. imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since I am from Chhattisgarh I know how important this film is in reviving Chhattisgarhi film industry after 30 years. This film gave us a great director Satish Jain who has previously been a writer of big Hindi films and actor Anuj Sharma who is a Padmashri award winner and MLA and gave many great actors and this film has also been dubbed and remade in other languages. Before creating this article I originally tried to create it from a draft article but the draft kept getting rejected. This article is an important part of the history of Chhattisgarhi culture. I know there are not too many reliable sources on the internet but this film is remembered by the people of Chhattisgarh. Tushar (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hi Tushar3011 (talk) thanks for acknowleding the importance of the film, if you can help improve the article with more info its better. Bonadart (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !voters are arguing that the film is very important, but are there any sources we can use for this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi, asilvering (talk)
i will again say it, bcoz kindly understand that 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' was 1st film to be made in local chhattisgarhi language in over 30 yrs. This film single-handedly gave birth to a new film industry in the state, all actors made debut with this film. Note that no one believed in this movie to have successful run when it was being made, as such there was virtually any coverage. till this date the local media rarely follows the Chhollywood. This despitre fact that films made here are of better quality and value than bhojpuri films known for crass dialogues and provocative song/dance (as per me). Its history that after its release thanks to word of mouth publicity the film became a blockbuster leaving behind 'Mohabatein' and 'Mission Kashmir' in the state. As such with no media coverage Chhollywood doesnt get mention in media, despite that people love these films. Today this film has acquired a cult status. Remember 'Andaz Apna Apna' despite huge star cast the film was declared massive flop but today it has gained a cult status. As such wiki page on 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' too deserves a place in wikipedia. Whatever sources that have been added are the only sources available online besides youtube (which is not accepted here). Most importantly this page is the most complete and well prepared page on this movie unlike previous attempts. As such 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' wikipedia page should be kept. If anyone can help improve it they are welcome.
Bonadart (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Struck! Voted twice[reply]
You were told before by another user to not vote twice and yet you did it again and repeated the same wall of texts. Please remove the second vote. RangersRus (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page has some sources....including a review by Komal Nahta. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a review by Komal Nahta in rediff source but some coverage with interview of the filmmaker. I already said about this in my vote and all other sources are poor and unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not technically a "review", but it IS significant coverage by a notable film critic and it certainly can be used on the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(And I can't locate your mentioning of Komal Nahta in your !vote, for the record) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Rediff enough? RangersRus (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on what you want to do of it. If you say you already mentioned "this" and I mention the name of the critic and you don't, no, it is not and it is therefore inaccurate to say you "already said about this". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why it matters whether the name of the source Rediff or the critic who wrote an article in it is mentioned? Nothing inaccurate here. RangersRus (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please! You say you have said something and you haven't. That's all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is already on the page but not independent of the filmmakers self claimed coverage. RangersRus (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can be attributed to Komal Nahta:

The story behind the making and release of Mor Chhainha Bhuinya, which has celebrated a 100 day run in Chhattisgarh, is such dramatic fare that it could easily pass off as a good subject for a hit film! Satish Jain, its writer-producer-director, is not new to the Hindi film world.

The worst came when Govinda and director Manoj Agarwal found his Hadh Kar Di Aapne screenplay unsuitable and replaced him, keeping only his story. Dejected, Satish returned to his hometown, Raipur in Chhattisgarh, with the subject for a Chhattisgarhi film in his mind, a little money in his pocket and a lot of tension.Making a Chhattisgarhi film was not easy, especially because until then, only two films had been produced in that dialect.Besides, there was no finance available for the film.

The film was mainly shot in Bhilai, besides other places. Once the film's shooting was completed, Satish thought his woes were over.But it had only just begun. No distributor was ready to touch the film. Depressed, but not daunted, Satish and his brother decided to distribute the film themselves.Without any knowledge of distribution, this was only the beginning of a further harrowing experience for the Jain brothers.Exhibitors were anything but co-operative. Some of those scoffed at the idea of screening a Chhattisgarhi film. But Satish and his brother used all their persuasive powers and released the film in Raipur, Durg and Bilaspur on Diwali (October 27).The rest, as they say, is history...The film, which opened with 3 prints, has 12 prints engaged today, 100 days later. The film completed a hundred day run on February 3 in Raipur, Durg and Bilaspur. Of these, cinemas in Raipur and Bilaspur had five shows daily -- an unprecedented record! In Durg too, the film was screened five shows daily for several weeks before it was brought down to four shows.The blockbuster, which cost less than Rs 15 lakhs to make, is expected to do a business of over Rs 2 crores. It is now heading for a hundred day run at Bhilai, Rajnandgaon, Korba, Dhamtari, Ambikapur and Shakti.At Rajim, which has a population of 25,000 and only two cinemas, the film is being screened at both cinemas! State transport buses are doing such brisk business, carrying loads of people to and fro the cinemas screening the hit that new bus-stops have sprung up outside such cinemas at Rajim and other smaller centres.In fact, people not only come in busloads, but in bullock carts and tractors too! So cinemas halls now display sign boards indicating parking space for the tractors and carts!In Bhilai, a British lady, running an institute where she teaches students to make video and documentary films, saw the film 70 times! She was so impressed by the film's message that the education system is not suitable for preparing the youth for jobs, that she even telephoned Satish to congratulate him. The film is about a family returning to their village after facing tough times in the impersonal city where they had gone with hope and dreams.The film's success means that about 25 Chhattisgarhi projects are in various stages of planning and production. Of these, five are in advanced stages of production or post-production.(...)But the film's collections picked up from the third day, and the collections have been rising since.The film, which looked too insignificant to merit a mention in front of the other two Diwali releases -- Mohabbatein and Mission Kashmir -- soon left the Bollywood flicks far behind in Chhattisgarh.Satish now plans to add a song to the film. This song, which already appears on the film's audio cassette, has the names of all the railway stations in Chhattisgarh and may well lure audiences all over again!The song is scheduled to be shot this month and will be included in all the prints from March. Satish is also contemplating dubbing the film in Bhojpuri.

I hate to make those long quotes. But do we have a choice? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I mention it can be used, although it is on the page, because asilvering's question is "are there any sources we can use for this"? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you omitted the claims/interview of the filmmaker from the same source that it uses for coverage and like I said earlier, it makes the article not indepedent of the claims made by the filmmaker. In the same source, the filmmaker says

Recalls Satish, "We sold our family land at Rana Pratappur, near Bastar. My brother-in-law also mortgaged his land, while my brother borrowed money from his friends. But we still ran short of money. So my father literally begged for funds, knocking door-to-door in our village. My entire family supported me in my time of need. "If the film has a running time of only one hour 50 minutes, it is because we decided to do away with the shooting of 20 scenes and a song as we had no money left."..."The film had a very slow start. In fact, for the first two days, I felt it wouldn't work. The worst fears overtook me. I would not have had the courage to face my family after what they had done for me. I thought I may have to run away..." Satish recalls.

RangersRus (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only source like i said couple of times before that we can consider some coverage but it is not independent of the filmmaker himself and per notability we need 2 or more secondary independent reliable source with indepth coverage and that can not be found on the page. RangersRus (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't OMIT it!!!! I left it out of the quotation on purpose, to cite only what can be attributed to the critic. Your quoting it here is almost bizarre....We needed a reliable source showing the cultural significance of the film. Here you are. I'm leaving it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi Mushy Yank (talk) thanks for this detailed response. I have tried to reason that its unfortunate that local media doesnt focus much on Chhollywood unlike telugu, tamil, bhojpuri, bangla, kannada, or malyalam movies. But some want to ignore the cultural significance and importance of the film that gave birth to an entirely new film industry. Hope this clarifies their doubts, once n for all. Bonadart (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this source ([6] - not sure about reliability) that says that this film revived the industry after 30 years and that the Indian state of Chhattisgarh was created 3 days after the release of this film. That in of itself sounds very significant. The Hindi name is मोर छैंहा भुइंया. DareshMohan (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DareshMohan: that source is unreliable personal BLOG of a user and with Gmail contact and says that it does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of information. I saw this source before when trying to find a secondary independent reliable source but because of its unreliability, ignored it. RangersRus (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source comes from a blog that was only created this year. A WHOIS search shows it is about eight months old. That with other factors show it is absolutely unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only source which could possibly be used to support notability would be this from Rediff.com. Although that is up for debate above. Assuming it is acceptable, that only leaves one reliable source that has significant coverage. I do understand the desire to want to keep this, but the sources simply do not support notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hi the local media doesnt follow or profile the Chhollywood as such media coverage isnt there except youtube (not accepted here) its neither the film or industry's fault. the significance is huge for giving birth to san industry. Raja Harishchandra and Alam Ara 2 important films, practically none review and virtually no coverage most mentions are books yet they have pages here, so why not this film Bonadart (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the fourth time you have stated such. It does not help your case as it is actually admitting that there is no significant coverage. The sources is what shows notability. Without them, the topic is not notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so does it change facts, i say NO it doesnt, if Raja Harishchandra and Alam Ara casn have pages why not this film Bonadart (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the TOI article is reliable as it is NOT part of the run of the mill NEWSORGINDIA they have put out lately. However, unless I am missing something, it is a simply mention of the film which only verifies it existed. Verification is not notability. The book is a little better but again, very little information other than verifying it was made and what it grossed. I think these get it closer but still not over the mark. Maybe a redirect to the cinema page with a mention would be appropriate. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully @CNMall41, you and I have a different definition of a "mention". This book I also found is what I consider to be a mention that only privides verification (a Chhattisgarhi language film titled Mor Chhainha Bhuinya was released in 2000). Of course you can argue TOI is not WP:SIGCOV because we don't have a firm definition of what constitutes SIGCOV, other than it's more than a sentence, but it is certainly more than a mention (non-trivial). It is eight sentences and 139 words (not counting the quote). The article also states The movie's stunning success propelled the rise of Chhattisgarhi film industry. (not included in Daresh's snip below). According Chhattisgarhi language, there are 16.25 million speakers of the language and this is the film that launched an entire industry representing those millions of people. That's not mere existence. S0091 (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mention? TOI says

Then in 2000, Jain returned to Raipur after parting ways with Govinda and decided to make a Chhattisgarhi film Mor Chhaihan Bhuinya (My shadow and earth). Soon enough, he realized he had to produce, direct and finance the movie himself because nobody thought a Chhattisgarhi movie would work. "We had to sell off our family land near Bastar. My brother-in-law mortgaged his land. My brother Tiku sang a few songs because we couldn't afford a playback singer," he remembers. No one else was willing, so the Jains distributed the movie themselves. Mor Chhaihan Bhuinya was released on October 27, 2000. Three days later, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced the creation of Chhattisgarh state. The crowds expressed their happiness by thronging the theatres. Produced at just Rs 20 lakh, the film grossed an eye-popping Rs 2.5 crore. It ran for 27 weeks in Raipur's Babulal theatre. In the two cinema halls of Razim and Nawapara qasbah, it ran 24x7.

DareshMohan (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we do. I would agree that the TOI is reliable, especially since it is bylined. The book is also good coverage but it is more about the filmmaker. Why I said passing mention is because it is more about the history of cinema and includes that as an example. It doesn't say anything about the film other than it was created. Genre? Review? I think agreeing to disagree is appropriate but still do not see this as enough for notability. Based on it being discussed in association with the history of cimena, it may be appropriate to include a snippet there as I sated above. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we disagree. There is no guideline that requires the genre or reviews. While reviews are one of the criteria for WP:NFILM so is #2 (historical significance) which includes Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. We'll agree another time though as we have several times before. S0091 (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And fwiw, I highly doubt my opinion will be factored in anyway, given the other votes above. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 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.
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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2

Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM. There aren't significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
Keep Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention except youtube, which is not accepted here. But it doesnt dampen people's interest in Chhattisgarhi film. Note Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 is the biggest and highest grossing film in last few years in Chhollywood and its theatrical run was longer than Kalki 2898. Also the 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2' wikipage is well structured and complete page created using whatever sources available. Also note it is an important film in Chhollywood that has been a trend setter for sequals. If anyone can help improve it they are welcome. Bonadart (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding much at all on Google. Is there a Chhattisgarhi language search engine? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention but in youtube, there is lot of info but it is not accepted here. Bonadart (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube channels that are the official channels of reliable sources such as newspapers or major magazines are acceptable. Do any of them meet that standard ? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is lot of informattion about the film in youtube, but point is, if it is accpted here Bonadart (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show us some of those sources? Here is what is said on Youtube. "Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK". If you have sources from verifiable reliable official account, please let us see. RangersRus (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi RangersRus (talk)
https://www.youtube.com/@VIDEOWORLDRAIPUR
https://www.youtube.com/@AVMGANA
https://www.youtube.com/@sundranifilms
https://www.youtube.com/@Cgliv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvgW-dBMYKE
https://www.youtube.com/@saregamaregional
https://www.youtube.com/@aarugmusicofficial
https://www.youtube.com/@sangwaritlm870
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J2fqbib53Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iIUu_Pvyqk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdFXT0M6wrw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y9l4satlTc

the list includes some for 2000 film and some for 2024 film and is endless but best reliable are attached Bonadart (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are poor to unreliable. First 3 youtube are music channels and looks like link to music videos, after that the 2 are self published youtube channels. Then 6 is again music channel and 7 too but looks self published and all the remaining clearly look like uploaded content by a unverified official accounts. Even the last source by Vistaar News has not significant coverage. There is no "lot of information" in any of the sources setting aside the problem with their reliability. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi you may consider them not reliable but lthese are the top search results, btw if reliability is bar then you have lot of reliable info on Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha but what has happened to the film, its super flop compare it to this movie - 1st sequel, longer run than kalki 2898, biggest hit in last 5 yrs, these are reason enough as per me to keep the page Bonadart (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you are saying. I do not know what Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha and kalki 2898 films have to do with the YouTube videos you showed that you found in top search and yet no significant coverage in any of them. We do not want to see youtube videos with stars and interviewer mingling and having fun but need a reliable source from verifiable official account that has significant coverage. If these above were your top searches, it is clear there is not much to go with. RangersRus (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are many !keep votes, but so far no reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering (talk)
Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention in print media except youtube, which is not accepted here. But it doesnt mean people dont like these movies, infact despite that people's interest in Chhattisgarhi film has grown. Note Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 is the biggest and highest grossing film in last few years in Chhollywood. Its theatrical run was longer than Kalki 2898 and made more monwy than Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha. Also the 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2' wikipage is well structured and complete page created using whatever sources available. Also note it is an important film in Chhollywood that has been a trend setter for sequals being the 1st such film. All these are reasomn enough for Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 to have a page in wikipedia. If anyone can help improve it they are welcome.
Bonadart (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Struck! voted twice[reply]
You were told before by another user to not vote twice and yet you did it again and repeated the same wall of texts. Please remove the second vote. RangersRus (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bonadart, it's important to remember that a subject can be popular, even very popular, and some people can think it's "important". But Wikipedia only judges articles based on notability as established by reliable secondary sources. If the sources don't exist, then, for now, there shouldn't be an article. It's not a critique of the subject, just whether or not it meets Wikipedia's standards which are unique to this project and often do not make sense to readers or infrequent editors. But, they are the basis for decision-making in AFDs. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi Read!|Liz|Read! (Read!|talk) you said unique!!! well this film Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 is a remake or spiritual sequal to Mor Chhainha Bhuinya, a film that gave birth to an entire film industry in a state, not just that, also it gave chance to all actors to make debut, was such a blockbuster that it pushed other established Bollywood films behind. As for the remake Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 in 2024, note that it is the biggest film in last 5 yrs, made the max. money at BO, had a longer theatrical run than Kalki 2898, did better business than a big film like Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha, and is the trendsetter for sequels in Chhollywood; are these not reason enough to make it unique and derserving a page in wikipedia. As for sources I have repeatedly said local media rarely profiiles Chhollywood movies but a lot of info is available in YouTube, which is not accepted here. It's not a film/ film industry fault if it is not profiled in local media. So I strongly believe this movie deserves a place in Wikipedia, and also its well-structured and well made page. Also, the film is such a big success that another sequel, Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 3 is set to release next year.Bonadart (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Liz explained very clearly, Wikipedia requires notability established by reliable secondary sources. Please understand this requirement. RangersRus (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi RangersRus (talk) what good has notability done to Thugs of Hindustan or Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha both are blockbuster flops. Where as this film is 1st remake, has longer theatrical run than biggest film, done better business in a state than biggest flops nationwide business, and is trensetter for sequels. These are enough reasons to keep this page, different matter that i have seen many pages without any source. Also the local media rarely profiles any Chhollywood film, so its not the film or industry's fault. I rest my case. Bonadart (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also continue to bring up things that fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is best to stick to the reasoning THIS page should be kept without comparing it to others. Specifically, cite the reliable sources that show how this meets notability guidelines (outside of YouTube which you have already provided - all of which cannot be used to establish notability). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reviewing this and the original (also up for deletion), the sources simply do not support notability. On its face, it may seem notable but sourcing must support. Even creator says "Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention except youtube" which sums it up. YouTube is not reliable and the media has not written about it significantly enough to meet threshold for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hi the local media doesnt follow or profile the Chhollywood as such media coverage isnt there except youtube (not accepted here) its neither the film or industry's fault. the significance original is huge for giving birth to san industry it even pushed other flicks behind. Raja Harishchandra and Alam Ara 2 important films, practically none review and virtually no coverage most mentions are books yet they have pages here, so why not this film you say notability, so what good has notability done for Thugs of Hindustan or Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha both are mega flops but have pages here, a different matter there are mamy pages without 1 source here too Bonadart (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your want to keep this, but you stated yourself that the industry is not covered significantly in the media. Reiterating the same statement is not helpful and only leads to WALLSOFTEXT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:DareshMohan has added sources addressing the question raised by the nominator during this discussion imv. Also, this film being a sequel, a redirect should be considered if notability is challenged. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three sources were added recently and unfortunately after analyzing them, they all are found to be unreliable.
    • Source Vedant Samachar disclaimer says "Some elements of the site will contain material (news/photos/videos etc.) submitted by users. Vedanta Samachar accepts no responsibility for such material. The correspondent/reporter will be solely responsible for such material published in Vedanta Samachar; Vedanta Samachar or its owners, printer, publisher, editor will have no responsibility for it."
    • Source Kelo Pravah is a BLOG and gets its contribution from the users as it's a citizens journalism. It says "If you come across any important incident, accident, corruption, motivational story, story, social issue or any other matter around you, please share it with us. We assure complete protection of your privacy. Your contribution will enable us to provide better and meaningful news."
    • Source TheRuralPress says "The opinions and views expressed in articles, blogs, comments, or other content on TheRuralPress.in are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of S S B Media House." "While we strive to ensure that the information on this Website is accurate and up-to-date, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to the Website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the Website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk."

User:DareshMohan you are well aware of the WP:ICTFSOURCES talk page and recommend you to initiate the reliability concerns of the sources on the talk page for concensus before adding them on the page. RangersRus (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I added the above sources since that's what I could find. Since I wasn't sure about notability, I didn't vote here. Although there are reliability concerns, those sources should have some edge over database sources #1-2, 8-9 and 10-13. 13 is very questionable to say the least. If you are keen to know my vote, it can be considered as weak delete (not opposed to redirect). DareshMohan (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure standard disclaimers on news websites are enough to discard any source as ’unreliable”, but that’s just me. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it depends. When the Terms are absent of any claims about being accurate that to me is a red flag. For example, TheRuralPress at least states they strive for accuracy which means they would need likely need prove that if came to lawsuit (i.e. they make corrections, retract, etc.). Unfortunately, my anit-virus software gives me a security warning for TheRuralPress, which has nothing to do with reliability but I will not assess it myself. The Hindu simply states it is up the reader to evaluate their accuracy. However, they explicitly disclaim accuracy for opinions, third parties, etc. which is typical (same for NYT). It is not typical to state the reporters are responsible. That's crazy and strongly indicates they have no staff journalists and no editorial oversight. S0091 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Martin Lisius. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Chasers of Tornado Alley: Touching the Sky

The Chasers of Tornado Alley: Touching the Sky (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM. If there should be WP:ATD, there can be a possible redirect to the director and writer, Martin Lisius. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only reliable source I could find is this review in Film Threat. A second reliable source is needed to establish notability. The other sources in the article are either unreliable or not significant coverage. My searches for sources did not find additional significant coverage in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 10:46, 9 September 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.
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. asilvering (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bae Youn-kyu

Bae Youn-kyu (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Appearing on non notable films doesn't show notability because it can't draw WP:SIGCOV from sources. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just move it to draft... Aidillia (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 14 September 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.
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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cezar D'Mello

Cezar D'Mello (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)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I searched for sources but couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meets WP:ANYBIO because he has received a well-known and significant award (Tiatr Academy of Goa's Lifetime Contribution to Tiatr Award).
  • Meets WP:NACTOR because he has made prolific contributions to a field of entertainment (tiatr).
  • Online references are not as common for topics about the Indian hinterland as compared to topics about the Western world.
The Discoverer (talk) 17:28, 11 September 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadbeat Films

Deadbeat Films (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)

Not a notable film studio, as its IMDb entry clearly shows. Tellingly, none of the cited sources even mention the studio. Additionally, notability is not inherited from films that the studio happened to be involved in. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : Per nominator's reason. Came across the page and had to make my own find out. The notable movies never claimed in any reliable source that Deadbeat Films was their movie studio production. Maybe reason why it was not even listed on the IMDB platform. So many unreliable source which also fails WP:GNG of the subject article.--Gabriel (……?) 22:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. As per my other comment, I apologize about the source misinformation. I'm doing my best to improve it, but I'm still incredibly new to this internship and even Wikipedia editing itself. I request more time for it to get fixed up. We're all very busy, so it will take some time, but it will be improved. If anything, some tips on how to improve it would be fantastic. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm an intern working for the studio itself. It's just smaller than what we're used to and it's in England. I'm not entirely sure where you live, but I definitely think it's more Indie British than anything Well Known American. I've just been hired on, and I believe part of my job is to freshen up and work on the various Wikipedia pages for the studio, its films, and its employees. Another intern started what I'm working on right now. It's a bunch of busy people on board and just needs its due time to cook in the oven. Thanks! MNLewis21 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Can you further explain more about your internal team and their works towards Wikipedia they intend to get started on. You mentioned some of your colleagues has started what you were currently working on. Can you as well list those draft. That will help. Also is the current article creator of the “Deadbeat Films” part of your internal team. Things needs to be clearer. Gabriel (……?) 19:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I'm not entirely sure, unfortunately. I believe the one who initially wrote and researched the articles relating to the studio and its employees has left the company since they were also an intern, but I can't quite confirm that. I've been keeping in touch with my employer Brook Driver, a creative director and screenwriter for the studio, about the articles' status and the advice I'm receiving (thank you very much, by the way). They're still trying to kickstart getting their online presence more well known and complete. As for drafts within the studio itself I don't have access to that just yet. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one that created the initial Wikipedia article for Deadbeat Films. I was an intern under Brook Driver at the time and designed this page. The creation of the page was done for no compensation and was based upon research of my own in an attempt to avoid biases and to follow the terms and rules of Wikipedia. I do acknowledge though that this was the first page I had ever created, so any issues present are all my own. I am willing to assist in any way I can in fixing the page if possible. I do believe that the company does meet the standards of having a Wikipedia page, especially when looking at pages for other previously released independent films. This article from TheGuardian directly talks about their recent film Swede Caroline and namedrops Brook Driver specifically: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/apr/17/swede-caroline-review-marrow-mockumentary-is-gourd-for-a-laugh This article from Little Black Book specifically discusses the merging of Deadbeat Films with Toma Productions (Direct connection to The Devil's Harmony): https://lbbonline.com/news/deadbeat-films-appoints-anthony-toma-as-head-of-production CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The official Swede Caroline poster also does feature the Deadbeat Films logo on it: https://www.swedecaroline.com/synopsis/ CFORMAN12 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources fail to demonstrate the notability of the studio. The Guardian source is a film review, not a company profile, and doesn't mention "Deadbeat Films" anywhere. As I stated in the AfD nomination, the studio doesn't gain notability from its people or products. Unless I'm mistaken, the LLB source looks like a press release. And the film website is, similarly, not an independent source. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 17:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the note of communication with Brook himself: I'm in America and he is in England, so the time zones have a large gap in between them. We are doing our best to communicate in a timely manner despite this hurdle. MNLewis21 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have one COI editor who I think we can view as an unbolded Keep, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 19 September 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.
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 no consensus‎. Even after discarding !votes based on the current content rather than the notability of such a list, we are still left with valid arguments on both sides, and no consensus materializing after three weeks. Feel free to renominate in three months. Owen× ☎ 21:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing sports films

List of highest-grossing sports films (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)

Topic fails WP:LISTCRIT, as there is no reliable source on how an items appears on the list. Interpretation of what is or is not a sports film comes off as failing WP:OR. See discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_79 in 2022 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#List of highest-grossing sports films here in 2024. Two years ago, the article was discussed for deletion, since then, per the second discussion topic this year it has been described as being in a worse state, specifically due to WP:OR, as there is no clear definition of what is or is not a sports film, the list is made up of material selected per choice by editors. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person who first brought this up. This isn't an issue of "theres coverage for it" its that it is a definitional impossibility that conflicts with sports films and list of sports films. And it isn't something that can be fixed either by going through it and saying what is or is not a sports film based on sourcing because the whole thing is a failed exercise that cannot be undone. It's not even a split list as its contents contradict the other lists its supposedly split from. As an encyclopedia this article is so all over the place that while everyone here is debating Babe i'm noticing that according to it the top sports films of all time are Inside Out 2 and the entire Fast and the Furious series alongside the Dragon Ball anime. We could go into a deep philosophical discussion about "what is a sport anyway" but instead this article exists as a fork from sports movies for no reason. –– Lid(Talk) 03:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bring up Babe is about sheepdog trail, sheepdog trails are considered a sport see about sheepdog trail being sports https://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/07/24/sheepdog_trials_feature.shtml Fanoflionking3 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not in denial of it being treated as a sport, what is and what isn't a sport film is less abundantly clear, so we can't just apply items like this. It's not clear what constitute the sports film genre per the links earlier that have different criteria. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we need a definition for a sports film then (i always considered that t being about a sport event or training for a event) Babe (using this as example) is about babe training for a sheep dog trail then complete in the trail. Fanoflionking3 (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the genre is that is vague and unspecific. As shown by the two links above, there is no obvious connection between what is and what isn't. This is why an editor above may laugh at the idea of Babe being a sports film, while other may not. We can have our own personal definitions, but as that's not categorizable, we can't say what is higher grossing than the other. If a film were specifically about baseball we might be able to have some sort of list, but that would be relatively fringe. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somethings are clearly sports film (rockey for example), whiles others could be question (babe for example) using babe a done a sample of what we could do.Fanoflionking3 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could do something like this, we do not need to every film just any witch someone question. Fanoflionking3 (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rank Film Year Worldwide gross Ref Sport(s)
1 Babe[a] 1995 $254,134,910 [2] Sheepdog trial
I think the talk page would be more appropriate for this, as the genre does not seem to be very specific, I don't think a list like this can be really be built on any foundation without some more strict details of what the genre may include. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/07/24/sheepdog_trials_feature.shtml
  2. ^ "Babe".

Notes

  1. ^ in the film Babe, Babe the pig trains to take part in a sheepdog trail, sheepdog trails are considered a sport[1]
  • Keep as a notable stand-alone list topic even though the list's current contents and approaches are garbage. The problem is defining a sports film as opposed to films that have sports in part, like considering Forrest Gump a sports film is WP:UNDUE. I do oppose the more complex and cross-categorization lists that are embedded in this list article per WP:NLIST since some just get plain indiscriminate. I would support a hard-ass culling of this list. Regardless, there are reliable sources talking about highest-grossing sports movies, so the scope is 100% tenable. We have to overcome the sloppiness of this draft. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there being reliable sources talking about highest-grossing sports movies necessarily means that the scope is 100% tenable. If those sources do not agree what counts as sports movies and what does not, there does not exist a consensus scope, but an equivocation. Do the sources actually agree on the scope in a way that makes for list criteria that are clear-cut and enforceable here? TompaDompa (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the scope is 100% tenable. The problem is with how to present the details. We definitely have reliable sources writing about the highest-grossing sports films. Do we see these sources naming Forrest Gump and Babe as sports films? Or is it certain editors being ridiculously and erroneously pedantic here? Furthermore, reliable sources are not published with Wikipedia suitability in mind. So can we find a way to work with their coverage? Other approaches here could be to avoid an overall list and instead have various embedded lists by sports (e.g., highest-grossing baseball films). Or we could redirect to just sports film and write some prose saying what has been identified as highest-grossing films in the sports genre and not commit to a table. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we have different ideas about what it means for the scope to be tenable. If the best we can do is redirect to just sports film and write some prose saying what has been identified as highest-grossing films in the sports genre and not commit to a table, I would not consider the scope to be tenable. I would not even consider the scope to be tenable if we have to avoid an overall list. I'm sure we can find somewhere on Wikipedia to include the words "highest-grossing sports film(s)" with some relevant content, but that's a much lower bar. TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think TompaDompa's suggestion might be best. Being the third...fourth...fifth highgest grossing sports film is not something commonly applied to any film as an achievement and would be unmeasurable. Being the highest grossing sports film of all time or something is something you could potentially cover. The rest is just numbers games that we can't apply as with even sourced material above, there appears to be no consensus to what is and what isn't considered a sports film from person to person. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll quote myself from roughly a year ago over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films based on television series: It is plain to see that this article, as so many box office lists before it, was inspired by the only such list on Wikipedia that is actually of high quality: List of highest-grossing films (a WP:Featured list). The problem with the proliferation of these lists is that they are created without understanding what it is that makes that list work, and they often just copy the structure without considering whether it is appropriate for the newly-created list—or indeed, considering whether the new list should exist at all. The result is that we have a plethora of poorly maintained, straight-up bad lists with myriad problems including—mainly—sourcing issues. This is, well, churnalism—or I suppose online one would call it content farming. It is the assembly of pure WP:RAWDATA by way of WP:Original research at the whims of Wikipedia editors who have mined box office databases for the data and come up with a new angle from which to slice it more-or-less arbitrarily. It is a scourge.
    As for what should be done about this list, specifically, if it is to be kept in any form whatsoever (be it as a stand-alone article or as part of some other article) it categorically needs to be demonstrated that it is actually possible to have inclusion criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources per WP:LISTCRITERIA, or in other words that there actually exists some kind of consensus among the sources about what belongs on the list and what does not. What we currently have fails the requirement from WP:LISTCRITERIA to Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. That goes for a lot of these lists. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is just a mirror of BoxOfficeMojo with some summaries ... that doesn't update as often. No effort to indicate when these statistics are captured or how out-of-date they might be. Or how they might compare across decades. And so the information is better kept at its source, and such an article offers no value. The inclusion criteria is between absurd and unenforced: there are silly entries (like *Babe*). But also entries for movies that haven't earned more than $10 million -- how could they possibly appear on any "highest-grossing" list? *Ben-Hur* for the "sport" of chariot racing? Come on. -- mikeblas (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see what value this article provides to the reader either. Reflecting the comment above, it is impossible to keep up to date. The problem is effective sourcing is another problem. I don't see its value as a standalone article. scope_creepTalk 13:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that this debate is not about whether the current contents of the page are to be retained, but whether the list could be compiled such that it meets LISTCRIT and other relevant guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:18, 18 September 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.
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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Police Officers (film)

Police Officers (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)

Fails WP:NFILM, no WP:SIGCOV anywhere, no critical reception whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 3 sources on the page. Source 1 by rediff is not a review. It talks about the film based on real life crime and the first half of the article is about the actual crime that took place and the second half of the article are claims/interview of the maker of the film, making the source not independent of the maker. Source 2 talks about the actual incident and just has a passing mention that the maker based his film on this actual incident. Source 3 is just a music site to listen to the songs. No significant coverage on the film itself from secondary independent sources. No multiple critical reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. If anyone can find 2 or more secondary independent reliable sources with significant coverage on just the film itself, I will reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Found a similar source about another one of the director's films, which is unreleased [12]. DareshMohan (talk) 07:44, 21 September 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SEFF Binghamton: Student Experimental Film Festival in Binghamton

SEFF Binghamton: Student Experimental Film Festival in Binghamton (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)

Student film festival that doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT. The only coverage I can find comes from student newspapers or non-independent sources. Orphaned for over a decade, not a likely search term. hinnk (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 9 September 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.
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. ✗plicit 14:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanha Dar Mazrae

Tanha Dar Mazrae (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)

No reliable sources (a.k.a. no wiki links) and no reliable reviews. This may fail Wikipedia:Notability (films). This article about a short film is short because no other sources exist.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayeye Penhan. I am also nominating the following related page because it is also is sourced by a similar website (akhbarrasmi, is it notable?):

Seyed Mohammad Mousavi Noor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) DareshMohan (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no participation so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this movie in Iranian cinema.
Khosli is attractive and spectacular and this movie has found many fans.
In our opinion, Iranians, this is the best movie in the Middle East, and if there is a little source now, it is because this movie has just been waiting and the article will gradually mature and grow, and I ask you not to show too much sensitivity on this issue and let it remain an article to avoid wiki law. 5.233.227.181 (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article should stay in English Wikipedia 5.233.231.50 (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Then I suggest to Drafitfy this and you can improve it, please. Some sources exist in the corresponding article in ParsiArabic (or sources you might have found in Persian). And ImDB says it is a short......that is 4 hours ad 10 minutes long..... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC) (edited, thanks, Svartner :D)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting, not much participation thus far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added my !vote above, as a reply. Hope it's not too confusing. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
!Thanks! will correct my blunder.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 23 September 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friends Communication

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

I cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP Loewstisch (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, English or Bengali (ফ্রেন্ডস কমিউনিকেশন), just passing mentions in articles about their films. The same is true of the sources cited, it's WP:REFBOMB'd with 96 citations about the films, but just 13 of them actually make passing mention of the company, literally "produced by Friends Communication" in each case. Wikishovel (talk) 10:06, 12 September 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.
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 keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining delete proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anjum Sharma

AfDs for this article:
Anjum Sharma (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)

WP:REFBOMB doesn't help matters and this draft doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. A recurring character in a film doesn't sometimes show notability. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an essay it's a policy guideline as it states at top of the page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is a guideline. As for If you really think trimming is the problem, then do it, that's asked so kindly, thank you, but I am not the one who sees an issue here. As for what the roles are, at least roles in the recurring cast in Mizapur and in the main cast of Sultan of Delhi. For the rest, the guideline is clear but I am not sure I understand what you say. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 15 September 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.
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 to Do the Right Thing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Raheem

Radio Raheem (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 article fails WP:NFCHAR. This character does not rise to the level of significance to warrant a dedicated article. This subject can be sufficiently covered in the parent article on the film. Recommend merging it back in it there. No other character, including more significant ones, have dedicated articles either.

The film, not this specific character, are the focus of references in reliable sources. MadeYourReadThis (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There was talk here of a possible Merge. User:Shooterwalker, what is your final opinion here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're leaving the decision to just two editors, I don't feel comfortable deleting or merging, in this specific case. You can interpret my vote for a procedural !keep until more editors can offer an opinion. (As for the content, I reiterate that there are sources, but most of them seem to talk about him in terms of the film's ending -- that is, their analysis of the character's death is their analysis of the film itself. So I keep wondering if this is really a separate topic.) Shooterwalker (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Do the Right Thing, which already mentions some but not all of the info. There has been enough real-world impact for WP to cover this, but it's still only a character from a single movie, and the article isn't even that long. I think it would be better editorially to cover this within the film context. – sgeureka t•c 12:37, 12 September 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.
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. ✗plicit 02:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Mountain (film)

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

Article about a film, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and instead films must show WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in third-party reliable sources -- but this is referenced entirely to the filmmaker's own self-published content about it, and makes absolutely no notability claim (awards, etc.) above and beyond "film that exists". And even on a WP:BEFORE search, I mostly found more primary sources -- all I found for GNG-worthy reliable source coverage was two hits in the local media of the city where the director was living at the time, of the "local man tries to make film" and "local man screens film locally" varieties, which is not enough by itself in the absence of any wider attention. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:25, 8 September 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.
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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 02:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetness (upcoming film)

Sweetness (upcoming 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)

WP:TOOSOON article about an as yet unreleased film, not reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient production coverage to be exempted from the main notability criteria for films at WP:NFILM.
There are just six footnotes here, of which two are the self-published Instagram posts of one of the producers, one is a press release self-published by a funding body, and one is a glancing namecheck of the film's existence in a "submitted article" (i.e. really just another press release) about the overall film and television industry in the region where this film was shot, none of which are support for notability.
That leaves just two hits that actually represent reliable and GNG-building coverage about this film, which is not enough coverage to exempt a film from the standard film notability criteria -- the special WP:NFF criteria require a lot of production coverage, not just one or two hits.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when this gets released and starts generating reviews by professional film critics, but two hits of production coverage is not enough to already justify an article now. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a lot more than just two hits of coverage to make a film notable this far in advance of release. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify. This is a nice start, but we need to think of this as less "this will release" and more "what if it never releases". If the film were to get indefinitely shelved then we have to consider if the article would pass NFILM based on its current coverage. Unfortunately it doesn't at this point in time. At present there is no set release date, so it could release this year or it could release two years from now. Or not at all. It could also be quietly released and gain no reviews. It wouldn't be the first film to receive this treatment, particularly in the horror/thriller genres. I do think that the article is a good start and it would be a shame to lose the work, so I support anyone who wants to take the article on as a draft. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:18, 13 September 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.
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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Grade (South Park)

Fourth Grade (South Park) (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 are several sides to this. But firstly, an episode of a television series is not inherently notable simply because it has aired. I don't find any pass on WP:GNG for this eleventh episode of season 4 of South Park. Secondly, there is 4th Grade (South Park episode) which currently redirects to South Park season 4, which makes this title a duplicate of the former. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Morrow, Terry (2000-11-08). "'South Park' still delivers punch". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "There's a renewed energy in co-creator Trey Parker's script. Even the opening credits, with the splash of explosions and the techno-laden theme song, punctuate that the show, with 62 episodes now behind it, is not resting on its profitable laurels. The fourth grade brings a new teacher, a Janet Reno look-alike in need of a bra and whose name can't be printed in a family newspaper. ...As "South Park" storytelling goes, this one is fairly straightforward and very funny. This opener is an indication that "South Park" hasn't lost its snap. Parker and co-creator Matt Stone still care passionately for the cartoon, and it is obvious. At this point, many shows—especially live-action comedies—have run out of ideas. But "South Park" retains its rebellious spirit. The fourth grade, it seems, will be very good for the show."

    2. Werts, Diane (2000-11-08). "The Gang Forges Into Fourth Grade". Newsday. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "All the tangy ingredients of writer-director Parker's patented pop culture stew are there. Cartman and the gang forge into fourth grade amid intrigue, taking in "Star Trek's" time-travel babble, the explosive suspense of "Speed" and former teacher Mr. Garrison's spiritual journey through "the tree of insight" toward his suppressed gay side. The usual nasty-boy word and eye play return in the person of oddly endowed new teacher Ms. Choksondik. There's even a rockin' new opening that elevates wheelchair pal Timmy to full-fledged regular status. But the pieces don't fit together quite as brightly as usual, making the whole somewhat less than the sum of its individually clever parts."

    3. Brown, Joel (2000-11-08). "Television Review - New season of 'South Park' goes fourth as the kids get promoted". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.

      The review notes: "As always, there's a demented kind of uplift here. Hypocrites are skewered, personal growth is encouraged and Timmy is treated with a rough fellowship that may be more politically correct than the show's creators OR its detractors would want to admit. Still this is a show that will send a lot of people screaming from the room. ... There's nothing in this episode quite as taboo-busting or as funny as the explicit love affair between Saddam Hussein and Satan in the "South Park" movie and one episode last season. But there's still enough off-color humor, graphic language and generally twisted mentality on display to give Bill Bennett a cerebral hemorrhage."

    4. Saunders, Michael; Sullivan, Jim (2000-11-08). "An upgrade on 'South Park'". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Tonight marks the start of a new season for the boys and girls at "South Park," the twisted, animated brainchild of Matt Stone and Trey Parker that airs on Comedy Central. Kyle, Cartman, and their pals enter fourth grade and are thrust into the horrific clutches of Ms. Choksondik, who forces cursive writing upon them. They lament "it's the end of innocence" and immediately persuade two "Star Trek"-freak college geeks to build a time machine to send them back to third grade."

    5. Kronke, David (2000-11-08). "The Hype". Daily News of Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.

      The review notes: "South Park returns tonight, with Kyle, Cartman and company promoted—somehow—to the fourth grade, where their new teacher, Miss Choksondik (no, it's not very subtle), is a fearsome creature with really, really pendulous breasts and a floating right pupil. It's bad enough for the guys to get nostalgic about third grade, and before long, they're building a time machine, which unsurprisingly creates chaos, and not much after that, right after the rather belated and lame "Speed" parody, Kenny dies, and a brand-new catch phrase is born."

    6. Morrow, Terry. "Kids of 'South Park' Growing Up Slowly". The Journal Gazette. Scripps Howard News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.

      The article notes: ""South Park: The Fourth Grade Years" (10 p.m. today on Comedy Central, Comcast Channel 65) will follow Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman into a new grade, with a new teacher, as creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone find more playground for the boys to trod."

    7. Bianco, Robert (2000-11-08). "Critic's corner". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.

      The review notes: "Those foul-talking kids from South Park (Comedy Central, 10 p.m. ET/PT) face the end of innocence as they are promoted to the fourth grade. Happily, age has not dimmed their ability to make you laugh helplessly, or to leave you gasping at their robust tastelessness."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow South Park: The Fourth Grade Years to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Are these "significant coverage"? They're all capsule reviews. The longest seems to be the Kronke article, which is just a plot summary. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Boston Globe article includes an interview with the creators about the episode and is several paragraphs long (more than solely a plot summary). The Boston Herald article is a review that is also several paragraphs long. The Newsday article also includes a review of the episode including its downsides (rather than just summarizing). Will update the article on the episode to include a 'Reception' section with the coverage in these reliable sources. Onyxqk (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Included a Reception section featuring reviews from three reliable sources and included information from the interview with the Boston Globe in the Production section. Onyxqk (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:16, 6 September 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.
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 keep‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I Racist?

Am I Racist? (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)

Doesn't appear to have proven notability aside from that Matt Walsh is involved. Only two references, both from the same website which is a social media aggregate and may not itself meet the criteria of a reliable source (and should probably carry a bias warning as owned by a conservative Christian broadcasting corporation, with the promo code Libtard to get 50% off to give you an idea). DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems to be a few reliable sources discussing it including Hollywood Reporter and The Hill, possibly more, that was just a quick look. StewdioMACK (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The THR article is a pretty clear press release write-up (doesn't make it unreliable but it's not in itself significant coverage), and The Hill segment is really about the marketing stunt which I don't think really speaks to the notability of the film itself. This has a good chance of changing when it's actually released but on the coverage it currently has it'd be better suited to a couple of sentences on Walsh's page. Chaste Krassley (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: release in 2 weeks and I think AfDs about films whose release is scheduled during or immediately after the AfD come either too late or too early. Feel free to consider this a procedural keep !vote. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Hollywood Reporter coverage referenced above looks like WP:SIGCOV, not churnalism. (It appears to be based on the trailer plus additional reporting about the upcoming release.) There's also SIGCOV in the New York Post (not deprecated for entertainment news), commentary by a staff writer at The Mary Sue and at AwardsDaily. Together, this constitutes a pass of WP:NFILM. And as Mushy notes above, I'd expect additional coverage and reviews in the days ahead. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on current sources, fails GNG and SIGCOV. Nothing else to comment on here. CNC (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are more sources that editors have flagged in this discussion per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given BEFORE doesn't apply to me as I'm not the nominator, I'll ignore this point. Based on NEXIST, granted Hoolwood Reporter is sigcov, whereas The Hill falls short. Citing WP:NYPOST as sigcov is otherwise short cited, clearly a film titled "Am I Racist" is political and therefore coverage is GUNREL. Regarding Mary Sue, an attack piece isn't exactly contributing much towards sigcov of the topic, but rather commentary on Matt Walsh himself. I'm otherwise not convinced AwardsDaily is RS, but could be convinced otherwise. This to me leaves only HR as the sigcov, which per policy, is not enough for NFILM on it's own. CNC (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify as WP:TOOSOON. The only references in the article currently is a site reposting social media posts, people posting on twitter don't prove notability. The other articles mentioned, and that I could find, don't appear to provide enough for notability at the moment. If more appear after the premier then the situation may change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested to Delete based on the reasons stated -- essentially that as it stands, the only two citations don't prove notability (and I'd suggest are not from a reliable source) and that the other existing coverage doesn't appear to be significant.
The page has also bypassed approval in the first place and at least in my opinion would have failed it.
It might gain notability later, but pages typically wouldn't be approved on what might happen. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a procedural note: nominators of pages for deletion are by default considered tacitly !voting Delete. It is therefore not necessary for them to bold that word anywhere else on the page as it might pass for a double !vote, even though I am sure you did it in good faith. Please consider using italics. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DarkeruTomoe I see this appears to be your first AfD nomination, so I encourage you to read WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Notability is not based on the sourcing in the article at the time of nomination. It's also based on the existence of coverage that meets WP:GNG or a subject notability guideline. WP:BEFORE says it is incumbent on nominators to search for additional sources before nominating. Editors in this conversation are surfacing reliable source WP:SIGCOV, and you should consider those sources as the debate progresses. Pinging @Chaste Krassley and @CommunityNotesContributor who are also new to AfD. I also had a lot to learn when I first got active at AfD! Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? new to AfD? With 15+ years of WP experience, I understand the process thanks. CNC (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia says your account was created 10 months ago and the stats say this is your 6th AfD. How would you expect anyone to think otherwise? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually check someone's user page, that's how. CNC (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I apologize for reaching my conclusion before I read all of your user boxes. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would anyone wish to delete this entry... does anyone dispute its accuracy... or, is the reason merely a wish to censor certain ideas.
Wikipedia is developing a reputation for leftward bias in its published entries. Censorship, in any form, would burnish that growing reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:C80:2E60:4D8E:63B7:8CC4:91CB (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, basically per Mushy Yank. Notability is borderline based on the sources from StewdioMACK and Dclemens1971, so I wouldn't be opposed to draftifying. Dclemens1971's New York Post source should be avoided though; WP:NYPOST calls it "marginally reliable for entertainment coverage" and "unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics", and the article is tagged as politics. I removed some stuff sourced to a Twitter aggregator which seemed to fall on the wrong side of WP:BLP. Deletion should be avoided since this is a likely search term. If there is consensus not to keep the article, we should maintain a redirect to Matt Walsh (political commentator). hinnk (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' or Draftify. WP:TOOSOON, no citations, barely even a stub with the amount of info honestly. Bluethricecreamman (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is ongoing debate over whether the additional sources identified by the above commenters are significant enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines or whether they are routine coverage. Please address these sources (and the existence of any others) in any continued discussion as this is the key Wikipedia policy issue that will determine the article's inclusion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My view remains to delete (or at least draftify) with only one appropriate source listed.
I'd agree with hinnk's view on the sources, with Twitchy and New York Post not being acceptable sources (NYP as only marginally reliable and a specific mention that it's unreliable for politics has me considering it unreliable for this article, though this is subjective).
I'd not consider The Mary Sue article reliable or relevant in this context. It barely mentions the documentary itself, being more an attack on Matt Walsh, so isn't much of a source for this article.
I don't see any immediate issue with The Hollywood Reporter, though searching the reliable sources noticeboard doesn't show a consensus on it (listed once as far as I can see, no response). I wouldn't consider the article on it substantial coverage though, as it looks like a press release spin more than anything.
Edit: I see a a commenter has also added in Megyn Kelly as a source since, but I'd question if this website counts as reliable. Looks like she's formerly of Fox News which isn't a great starting point as it's unreliable for politics and noted as having concerns generally too according to Reliable sources/Perennial sources. She's also publicly made the false claim that Imane Khelif is male which doesn't speak well to her reliabilityDarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean “the noticeboard doesn’t show a consensus on it”??? Did you even search for it? The Hollywood Reporter is listed as a perennially reliable source; see WP:THR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:21, 9 September 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.
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 keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Short Life of Anne Frank

The Short Life of Anne Frank (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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shorter reviews carry more weight if there's a lot of them, and there seems to be a decent amount here. A non-terrible article could be made from this if anyone wished to try. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article describes this as a TV film, but it looks like it premiered at a film festival and was (presumably) later screened on TV. Unless there's coverage that explicitly states that this was made for TV and happened to premiere elsewhere first, we should probably treat this under NFILM. Which it looks like everyone is doing, but I wanted to voice that here just in case. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like it was produced by a TV station, so that's where the TV aspect comes in. I'm kind of torn on this. On one hand, it does look like the film is routinely included in various exhibits on Anne Frank and the Holocaust. A copy is also held in the collections of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Anne Frank House has info about it and various ways to watch it on their website, so I'd assume it's also archived there as well. This would point towards it being notable, but there's also not a lot of info so a list page could be good as well. The main thing that makes it stand out is that when it released, it had the only footage that had been shot of Anne. I've cleaned the article up so it looks a bit better and less like a stub. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:01, 13 September 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.

Proposed deletions

Categories

Templates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Film&oldid=1245277941"