Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

Deletion discussions relating to filmmakers, directors and other non-actor film-related people should no longer be listed on this page. Please list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers instead.

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Film|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Film. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Film AfDs

Scan for Film Prods
Scan for Film template TfDs

Related deletion sorting

Film[edit]

Mythology of The Librarian[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT; WP:OR. Characters aleady included in their own article. --wooden superman 12:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Television, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a pretty clear cut "Wikipedia is not FANDOM" issue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first half of the article is just a bunch of links all leading to the actual character list for the franchise at List of The Librarian characters, and the second half is just unsourced plot material. I'm not finding much in the way of coverage in reliable sources that actually discuss the mythology or lore of the franchise, so the topic fails the WP:GNG as well. Rorshacma (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as appropriate to The Librarian (franchise), the WP:SS parent, as an ATD. I see no rationale articulated in either the nomination or prior !votes that would prohibit or deprecate such an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What exactly from this article would be appropriate to upmerge here? The characters are already covered both on the main article as a chart, and in more detail in the separate List of The Librarian characters. Likewise, the main article already has a small section on the "Mythology of the Librarian" that gives a brief overview of the topic. And on top of that, there are essentially no source, even primary ones, being cited here to support any of the information being presented. The rationale for prohibiting that as an ATD is simply because there is nothing that would be appropriate to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rorshacma. There is nothing to merge to The Librarian (franchise). Walsh90210 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. Unreliable sources in most cases, and nothing to merge. Fails WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's all in-universe details without sourcing so there's nothing worth upmerging that isn't already there. hinnk (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The entire article is little more than a collection of original research. There is nothing worth preserving here. Furthermore, the title is a bit too unusual to work as a plausible search term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slowpoke Rodriguez[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with the article's main source being primarily about Speedy Gonzales. List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters is partially incomplete and putting the info there would help to fill out that article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see that a merge was tried (and the talk page discussion on this is ancient), and certainly wouldn't revert one myself if I saw it. Does this really need to be at AfD? Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I consider any character article too controversial to just boldly merge, so to preempt that I don't see what's wrong about AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom; not a suitable stand-alone article. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster[edit]

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

Also for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Prix: The Killer Years, by the same filmmaker.

Contested PROD. Editor added sources, only to add three which is not enough to assert notability of this non-notable television film to 2024 standards per WP:NF. One of those is WP:PRIMARY and the other is a TV guide recommendation. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should 3 sources not be enough to assert notability? How many do you wish? Or did I misunderstand and is it not the number but the nature of the sources you are not satisfied with? Anyway, you have now 6 (or 4 if you consider that 2 do not count (but a TV guide recommendation should imv count)) and they seem significant enough. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cunard added sources and deproDed the page (same nom). The coverage including critical commentary may be judged significant enough to show this is notable. A redirect to the event itself should be considered anyway (in a In film section). Also see https://www.cararticles.co.uk/uk-deadliest-crash-the-1955-le-mans-disaster.html (a review on what is technically a blog; the reviewer has 3340 articles listed there...) and https://www.autoweek.com/racing/more-racing/a1813276/deadliest-crash-dives-1955-le-mans-catastrophe/ or https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/the-rivalry-that-caused-the-deadliest-crash-in-motorsport-1973804.html among other things. (that might seem more than enough for GNG or for NFILM so MAYBE that implies that the other Afd, if that is indeed the same case, as the nominator states, should have had another outcome with a little bit of work...) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody could dispute that Cunard did a good job with the sourcing but even WP:BEFORE turned out nothing which led to this AfD. Reviewing the new sources above, Autoweek speaks little of the documentary, I cannot see if that is worthy of a review. Independent did better, a bit. And again, it talks about the disaster too. I cannot see how blogs count as reliable sources also. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CarArticles : SPS expert sources may count or at least may be used.

Autoweek speaks little of the documentary,? Autoweek's article's title is 'The Deadliest Crash' Dives Into The 1955 Le Mans Catastrophe which clearly means its main focus is on the film....It does speak sufficiently of it to be considered significant: Originally aired in 2010, the documentary above dives into the background of the race with some spectators and participants, but spends it the second half talking about the accident in graphic detail. For motorsports fans who haven't already seen it, this hourlong documentary is a must-watch -- note that viewers might find some of the footage disturbing.

it talks about the disaster too. Obviously, yes, it's because the film is a documentary based on newly-found footage. They describe the new "evidences" as seen in the film.....

The Independent article subhead is Newly found footage puts blame on British driver for a 1955 disaster that killed up to 120 at Le Mans....

Anyway, I've added quotes from 2 of these sources to the page too + a mention in the The Routledge Companion to Automobile Heritage, Culture, and Preservation.

Feel free to add more: some extra coverage is listed here but it's only identified and it implies some search, for which I won't have time; and also as I think I will leave it at that, as I consider I have done, here and on the page, what I could to show the film meets the requirements for notability and even mentioned an ATD. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, France, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is now referenced to reliable sources coverage such as the Independent, Daily Telegraph, Autoweek and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Radford, Ceri (2010-05-17). "Worried About the Boy, BBC Two, Review". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  The review notes: "At the opposite end of the subtlety spectrum was The Deadliest Crash: the Le Mans 1955 Disaster (Sunday, BBC Four), a documentary exploring the infamous motoring smash-up which killed at least 80 spectators (the exact figure is uncertain) when a car flew off the track into a packed grandstand. It didn’t take long to get to the point. Death! Disaster! Flying debris! Burning bodies! As soon as the opening credits had faded we were assaulted with archive images and eyewitness accounts of the whole gruesome panoply. It was like a cross between a video nasty and a mind-boggling trip back in time to a past that wasn’t just another country, but a different planet. ... This programme was brash but fascinating. Health and safety and PR may be seen as modern evils, but looking at footage of the race’s winner spraying champagne just metres away from the charred corpses of his fans, you can see why they became necessary."
2. Clay, Joe (2010-05-15). "Digital choices". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  The review notes: "Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster BBC Four, 9pm At 6.26pm on June 11, 1955, on the home straight early in the Le Mans 24-Hour race, the future British World Champion Mike Hawthorn made a rash mistake that caused Pierre Levegh's Mercedes 300 SLR to career into the crowd, killing 83 people and injuring 120 more. It remains the worst disaster in motor racing history and this excellent film (above) uses original footage and stills, along with eyewitness accounts to examine the chain of events to try to discover exactly what happened."
3. Wren, Wesley (2017-01-24). "'The Deadliest Crash' Dives Into The 1955 Le Mans Catastrophe". Autoweek. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.
  The review notes: "Originally aired in 2010, the documentary above dives into the background of the race with some spectators and participants, but spends it the second half talking about the accident in graphic detail. For motorsports fans who haven't already seen it, this hourlong documentary is a must-watch -- note that viewers might find some of the footage disturbing."
4. The other sources found in Mushy Yank (talk · contribs)'s excellent research including the extra coverage listed here.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Passes GNG as the subject of multiple instances of independent, published, significant coverage of presumed reliability. Nominator cites a Special Notability Guideline, which is trumped by GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prasads Multiplex[edit]

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

Borderline G11, no indication of notability or significance for this IMAX theater, Sourcing isn't of WP:ORG level depth Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, and India. Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Independent coverage in rather reliable sources, significant and in depth, about this multiplex, and backing the claim that it houses the biggest screen in India! (other sources claim it is one of the world's largest 3D IMax). So, yes, there are various indications of significance and notability and it seems to meet WP:GNG. A redirect to Culture_of_Hyderabad#Film is imv absolutely warranted anyway. Opposed to deletion. (G11? "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." So basically, borderline G11 is not G11, if it was just that the tone and content may have been partially promotional, Afds are not for cleanup and given existing coverage, this potential issue was easily fixed; added 2 refs and trimmed the page but this can evidently be improved and expanded, thank you) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoOzy' OS and the Cristal Gem[edit]

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

This appears to fail WP:NFILM. This was a short film which was submitted to a 2013 Dailymotion contest connected with Annecy ("+ de courts"), but which did not win the judging ([1]). I can't find any mention of it in the archived Annecy web site, nor can I find any substantial coverage online, just a lot of entries in film databases and an unusual amount of media on Commons (for now, at least: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by REDƎYE). Omphalographer (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. Omphalographer (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any substantial coverage in secondary sources outside of a blog or two. Nowhere good to redirect to, it isn't mentioned in Annecy International Animation Film Festival and there's no article for the director. Odd that a French film has articles in 30 languages but not French. hinnk (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was in French Wikipedia but they deleted it years ago as non-notable. hinnk (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find many secondary sources on Google : a critic review in Romania, another in London (2023), an interview in Paris (2014), another in India (2023), etc. IMDB shows 1700 votes, 8 awards and 1 nomination. This seems to me to be very ample in terms of notoriety for a short film ^^ (note : I remember the AFD in FR in 2014 : at that time, there was not enough sources (only 1 interview I think) but with today awards and coverage, I think the article should be recreated in FR) --Supersonic888 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not 8 but 10 wins, and not 1 but 4 nominations ^^ I just added "Critical response" and "accolades" sections with sources on the article. --Supersonic888 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary sources that don't help meet the general notability guideline, those two reviews are both from sites that accept payment for reviews ([2]~~[3]~~[4]), and the World Film Carnival Singapore site you added to the article was running malware that immediately redirected me without even showing a review. Do you understand my concern when someone says a subject is very ample in terms of notoriety, with this as the evidence? hinnk (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm admittedly not an expert on the film industry, but most of those awards appear to be from monthly online competitions, not notable film festivals. For example, the "Rome International Movie Awards" is a blog which issues dozens of awards to amateur films every month. Omphalographer (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert on the film industry either but it seems they paid for participating in festivals, not for reviews or awards. I didn't have any problem for visiting the World Film Carnival site (no malware for me) ^^

The fact that it is an amateur film (if it is one? I don't know) does not seem to me to be a criterion for deletion: we are talking about notoriety and I believe that this point is respected, internationally (I add that on Commons there are photos showing the director with trophies at these festivals in Asia, which also shows international distribution).

If we look at Category:2013 animated short films and IMDB (when available):
Aruvu Rezuru: Kikaijikake no Yōseitachi = 23 votes

Backward Run = 77 votes, 1 win & 3 nominations

The Blue Umbrella (2013 film) = 11000 votes, 1 nomination, 17 critics (Pixar)

A Boy and His Atom = 454 votes, 1 critic

The Chaperone 3D = 90 votes, 7 wins & 4 nominations, 1 critic

Death Billiards = 2100 votes, 2 critics

The End of Pinky = 51 votes, 2 nominations, 3 critics

Game Over (2013 film) = 0 vote

Get a Horse! = 5600 votes, 2 wins & 2 nominations, 20 critics (Mickey)

Gloria Victoria = 137 votes, 1 win & 7 nominations, 5 critics

Hollow Land = 58 votes, 8 wins & 3 nominations, 1 critic

Impromptu (2013 film) = 28 votes, 1 nomination, 1 critic

Kick-Heart = 1000 votes, 1 wins & 3 nominations, 9 critics

Mary & Myself = 16 votes, 1 nomination

The Missing Scarf = 468 votes, 15 wins & 5 nominations, 4 critics

Missing U (film) = 26 votes

Mr Hublot = 5200 votes, 6 wins & 2 nominations, 14 critics

Party Central = 3700 votes (Disney Pixar)

The River's Lazy Flow = 11 votes, 1 win & 1 nomination

The Scarecrow (2013 film) = 248 votes, 5 wins

The Smurfs: The Legend of Smurfy Hollow = 986 votes, 1 nomination, 13 critics (The Smurfs)

Subconscious Password = 198 votes, 3 wins & 5 nominations, 4 critics

Toy Story of Terror! = 18000 votes, 6 wins & 10 nominations, 31 critics (Disney Pixar)

This is to show that with 1700 votes it has more votes than most other films, even more than The Smurfs. Only 6 blockbuster films have more votes (Disney Pixar, Mickey, etc).

To me, all this is significant in terms of notoriety even though one could still argue that some votes could be rigged. Supersonic888 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User votes on IMDb are not in any way, shape, or form a measure of notability (nor "notoriety"). Omphalographer (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and that's not what I'm basing it on here (I just point this out, in addition to my remarks), but it's an interesting indicator ^^ Supersonic888 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are fine with me and the notoriety seems sufficient to me, with good worldwide coverage. However, some festivals mentioned are a bit light (Morocco Fest and Oregon Film Festival: there is only one primary source). The article seems acceptable to me on Wikipedia in French as well --CineDany (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Convinced by the arguments, sources ok for me. The only point that would make me hesitate would be the film’s absence from major review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. --SuperKFuu (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not impressed by the quality of the sources; this seems to fail the notability guidelines. There's a concerted effort by the creators to prop up the work across Wikimedia projects but the coverage just isn't there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have several less experienced editors participating here and I urge them to review Wikipedia:Notability (films) which is Wikipedia's guideline on how to judge notability regarding films and it doesn't include consideration by IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes. The nominator pointed out this page but I don't think some editors here are familiar with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the references that have been added, I put together a quick source assessment to evaluate where we are now. It seems to me like WP:GNG has still not been reached. hinnk (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:hinnk
IMDb		WP:IMDB	?	✘ No
C2S Network	Press kit			✘ No
Dailymotion contest		?	Just the title listed as a contest winner, although "More infos" section lists a different winner	✘ No
AllMovie		~ WP:ALLMUSIC, AllMovie ratings seem unreliable since they're included even on upcoming/lost films	Mostly facts imported from Wikidata, otherwise just the numerical rating	✘ No
World Film Carnival Singapore	?	?	? Dead link, failed verification, Internet Archive page is also empty	? Unknown
Monkey Bread Tree	~	Offers coverage as a paid service		✘ No
fiffest	~	Offers coverage as a paid service		✘ No
Paris à contre-jour	Interview	?	? Dead link, failed verification	✘ No
Oniros Film Awards		?	Just the title listed	✘ No
Sea & Beach Film Festival		?	Just the title listed	✘ No
Druk International Film Festival		?	Just the title listed	✘ No
World Film Carnival Singapore		?	Just the title listed	✘ No
Cult Critic Movie Awards		?	Just the title listed	✘ No
Rome International Movie Awards		?	Just the title listed	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete: The film is not notable per our standards. Little to no coverage in .fr sources, this is the best [5], it's basically a listing akin to the imdb. The awards won are not notable (none from notable film festivals), nor can I find confirmation of the Annecy win (the source used, Dailymotion, is not reliable). Annecy is a big deal in France, and the fact that zero media there have covered it is proof of non-notability. Here's the search [6] in Gnews, looking for sources from France: listings for kombucha drinks and other kinds of nonsense, completely unrelated ot this film. Oaktree b (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's the French wiki deletion discussion from 2015: [7]... The sources found were the films sponsors, none of which were in French either. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: My French is limited but you're just reading the Afd nom's rationale apparently....and he (nor anyone on that page) does not say that no sources in French existed.... (not that it should have mattered the least, btw). Also, shall we delete every page the French Wikipedia has decided to delete? Good luck. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In addition, the AfD on the French wiki is from 2015, whereas most sources provided here are more recent. Not only should this comment not be considered, but it also makes me wonder if the French article could not be restored. Streets4rage (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_animated_short_films#2013: and add the sources there, if it's judged insufficient for a page; but not opposed to Keep myself, given the sources presented and the number of screenings/awards. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for many reasons that follow the guidelines:
- the film is worldwidely distributed and has received full-length reviews by at least three critics ten years after its initial release
- the film is historically notable as it was screened in at least two (maybe up to eight or more?) festivals more than five years after initial release
- in addition the film has been covered in at least two books in English (which I have added in the bibliography section) including one which considers it one of Dailymotion 120 successes
- the Hungarian film database Mafab ranks the film as the 30th (among 3181) best short film and the 291st (among 3708) best animated film
- and by searching for “BoOzy’ OS and the Cristal Gem” on Google, I found on the 1st page that the film is ranked 6th among the most consulted film listings on this French database. By the way, speaking of numbers, if we look closely at the Dailymotion source, the film had been watched on this website 144,032 times as of October 6, 2014, ie about a year and a half after its release. These numbers, like IMDB's, do not establish its notoriety but it is a coherent whole that is find almost everywhere which indicates that it has a substantial audience and not just limited to one geographical area.

In a short time, this is all I find; I don't have time to look further but all this (including comments above) seem really more than enough to me --Streets4rage (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't consider online views or listings in databases to prove notability. Unless the numbers are audited, they can be tricked/gamed by streaming farms. Similarly for online music, we don't use Apple/Spotify streams/downloads as proof of notability as they aren't audited the way radio airplay is or album sales at the retail channels are. Being 291st out of 3000-something films isn't terribly notable either... Oaktree b (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Streets4rage, thanks for adding the book sources to the bibliography. Unfortunately, neither of these meet the standard for reliable sources. You'll notice Dailymotion 120 Success Secrets was immediately removed by an uninvolved editor because Emereo Publishing republishes content that mirrors Wikipedia content. World Book of Short Films is a self-published book, which means it isn't acceptable as a source. I would recommend being a lot more cautious when taking facts from a press kit. hinnk (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oaktree b, about numbers, Streets4rage did not write anything of the sort, quite the contrary: "These numbers, like IMDB's, do not establish its notoriety". 291st out of 3708 isn't terribly notable, but 30th out of 3181 is (but before making me say what I did not say: that does not establish notoriety ^^) - on the other hand, the first two points mentioned by Streets4rage do ("three critics ten years after its initial release" & "screened in at least two (maybe up to eight or more?) festivals more than five years after initial release"). Supersonic888 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is another source assessment table, based on those from Hinnk and Streets4rage (which was removed even though it contained important info for this vote). I think Hinnk is right about the books, so I'm editing here what Streets4rage wrote. It seems to me like WP:GNG has been reached. --Supersonic888 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Supersonic888
IMDb		WP:IMDB		✘ No
C2S Network	Press kit			✘ No
Dailymotion contest		They are the organizers of the contest	~~Just the title listed as a contest winner, although "More infos" section lists a different winner~~ It's clear: the film was chosen by the public, and the jury chose another one	✔ Yes
AllMovie		~ WP:ALLMUSIC, AllMovie ratings seem unreliable since they're included even on upcoming/lost films	Mostly facts imported from Wikidata, otherwise just the numerical rating	✘ No
World Film Carnival Singapore			~ ~~Dead link, failed verification, Internet Archive page is also empty~~ I was able to access the link a few days ago, but the page loads endlessly today. Maybe the site is under maintenance? I don't know how Internet Archive works, so I'm not validating it at this time.	~ Partial
Monkey Bread Tree		~~Offers coverage as a paid service~~ WP:AGF we should assume good faith: creators said they didn't pay for it		✔ Yes
fiffest		~~Offers coverage as a paid service~~ WP:AGF we should assume good faith: creators said they didn't pay for it		✔ Yes
Paris à contre-jour	Interview		~~Dead link, failed verification~~ link ok with Internet Archive, only video does not load and can be accessed here	✘ No
Cult Critic	Interview			✘ No
Oniros Film Awards		IMDB qualifying	~ ~~Just the title listed~~ This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say	~ Partial
Sea & Beach Film Festival		IMDB qualifying	~ ~~Just the title listed~~ This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say	~ Partial
Druk International Film Festival		IMDB qualifying	~ ~~Just the title listed~~ This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say	~ Partial
World Film Carnival Singapore		IMDB qualifying	~ ~~Just the title listed~~ This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say	~ Partial
Cult Critic Movie Awards		IMDB qualifying	~ ~~Just the title listed~~ This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say	~ Partial
Rome International Movie Awards		IMDB qualifying	~ ~~Just the title listed~~ This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say	~ Partial
Dailymotion 120 Success Secrets		Emereo Publishing republishes content that mirrors Wikipedia content	Page 10	✘ No
World Book of Short Films		self-published book	Page 49	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Supersonic888, please remove my name as the preparer of that table, its conclusions are very different than mine. In particular, the standard for WP:SIGCOV is that a source "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Meeting this with sources that do not discuss the subject in detail is not a reasonable interpretation. Similarly, invoking WP:AGF about whether or not the creators paid for coverage is off-topic. WP:RS is for evaluating the publication, not the production studio. We don't conduct our own investigations into the article's subject, we identify questionable sites that are sponsored/promotional in nature and then don't use them.

I appreciate your adding additional detail about how you accessed World Film Carnival Singapore. The Internet Archive has made backups of the URL in question 4 times in the past year, and it shows that the page has been broken for quite some time. For me, it strains credulity that the page was broken when I visited it on May 28, came back up only when you visited it later that day, and then immediately broke again for everyone. The place you would've been able to been able to get that quote would be the C2S press kit. That would mark the second time an editor in this AfD added material from the press kit that they couldn't actually have accessed but glossed over that fact.

Since I don't have time to do it myself, I would ask that the AfD closer evaluate this discussion for any signs of meat puppetry or off-wiki canvassing. hinnk (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hinnk, sorry about your name, I copied and pasted the table and didn't see it. It wouldn't have bothered me if you had changed it ^^

As for WP:AGF, I copied and pasted what Streets4rage wrote, too. I mentioned it and any way, it seems fair to me: your link for a paid service does not say that all reviews were purchased.

To be more specific about the World Film Carnival Singapore, I accessed the link at least a year ago through Facebook. But yes, I copied the link from the press kit, as for the other 2 reviews, which was easier because everything is in the same place (try to find a Facebook post from a year ago, good luck ^^). Besides, on my computer the link was grayed out, which shows that I had already accessed it. I cleared the cache this afternoon (French time) and since then it loads endlessly. I tried your archive links and it didn't work neither. I don't know how to put another date.

I don't see what this proves about me and I don't know what else to tell you, sorry. Yes, you can ask that the AfD closer evaluate this discussion for any signs of meat puppetry or off-wiki canvassing (I have more interesting things to do than that ^^), I won't speak for the others contributors but personally I don't mind ^^ Supersonic888 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am super curious how some people found this AfD. (For transparency, I found it through a Commons file deletion discussion).
Streets4rage hasn't edited this project since 2023 before finding this.

SuperKFuu hasn't edited since 2022 before finding this.

Supersonic888 has one edit in 2023 and otherwise also hadn't edited since 2022 before finding this.

CineDany had 9 edits since 2021 before finding this

I suspect some sort of outside canvassing is going on here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters[edit]

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

There are two big issues: Firstly, there's no citations outside of the one character that already has his own page, Newt Scamander. Secondly, this is for a three-film series - so not really a huge body of work - and, outside of the main four or five characters, there's one or two sentences for each person. Worse, the articles on the films have cast lists with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters, so it's redundant as well (The main characters' longer bits just being the plot summaries of the films). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:CSC #2, no argument for deletion made that cannot be remedied by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it rises to the level of notability where it can ever be sourced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These articles a little weird if we are trying to go by consistency. List of Harry Potter characters exists, but that is for characters who appeared in any of the books, which a lot of these do not and are not mentioned in that article. There is also List of Fantastic Beasts cast members which compliments List of Harry Potter cast members (a featured list.) Maybe it might be beneficial to merge the two Fantastic Beasts articles since the cast members one is well sourced, while this one is not. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to Fantastic Beasts having multiple articles, but the number of secondary articles on it seems vastly out of line with the material. Fantastic Beasts (film series) and the three film articles are sensible enough, Newt Scamander seems to have enough independant coverage - and crossover content between various things - that it's justified, but when you get to a list of the characters, and a cast list as a table without any context, it feels both redundant and weird. It feels like the cast list should be at the end of the article on the series, and the character list... well... it's really hard to see why that exists at all if this article the most we can come up with, and I don't think anything in it isn't in the cast sections of the articles for each film; indeed, I think those may be doing a slightly better job.

Harry Potter isn't a good guide to what should exist here, as that was a much, much bigger phenomenon than its spinoff, and, as a book series, had both a lot more characters than could plausibly fit in a plot summary and a lot more development and recurrence of minor characters (and Rowling talked a lot more about the development of those characters in interviews). Films just don't have the depth of books, and, if there's material about secondary characters that got left out of the films, as far as I'm aware, it's not reported on.

And, of course, Harry Potter in particular had a lot more secondary sources that went into detail about every character; Fantastic Beasts doesn't have anything like that depth of coverage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel there has to be a merge target as an WP:ATD for this. The one suggested above seems less intuitive than if the main article had a characters section. Perhaps each individual film should have a characters section? Conyo14 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They already do, is the thing, with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters. And it covers pretty much all the information on this page except for the main cast, who are redundant to the plot summary. If I've missed that one doesn't appear, by all means copy it over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 13:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. I think there is enough to write about these characters, both as a group and individually, based on pop culture sources like [8], [9], and scholarly sources like here and many others. While it is indeed a problem that there are almost no references, this can easily be addressed through normal editing by using such secondary non-independent book-length sources like Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: Character Guide or Harry Potter: Characters of the Wizarding World. The latter also sets a precedent for a possible merge with List of Harry Potter characters, if a collective treatment is somehow seen as beneficial. (Which would pose the naming problem, where surly there can be a compromise if needed.) No strong opinion on that particular question. List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to me seems to have less content, so this could be merged here, discussion on the name notwithstanding. Or that list could be merged to Fantastic Beasts, as suggested this discussion, leaving the our list here with solvable problems to solve. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further pop culture sources, if somewhat focussed on a specific film of the series would be [10], [11], and with a fun bit of analysis, [12]. So again, that there is not enough sourcing to constitute an article does not at all seem to be the case. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it feels redundant to the film articles, and there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article, but, well, sure. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article: On the one hand I think that's a valid concern, seeing that some articles stay tagged and unimproved for long periods of time. But on the other hand I think that is the basic premise of Wikipedia, and the project is immensly successful! So I prefer to err on the side of hope in accordance with WP:There is no deadline and especially WP:Work in progress. Daranios (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, but I think when the article's a spinoff that has redundant information to other articles at present, it's perhaps more of a question. As it stands, it's just the character lists already in the three films, but as an unreferenced, alphabetised list. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not turn List of Fantastic Beasts cast members into a Redirect as that article is being discussed as a possible Merge target article which can't occur if the page is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but do note the entirety of List of Fantastic Beasts cast members is merged to Fantastic Beasts now, so unless we do combine, should redirect. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. The two subjects can be elegantly merged, and together there is less question about notability. Malinaccier (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. See no reason why not to. Only the same characters. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Malinaccier and Hyperbolick: If the result was a merge, would you prefer to merge this List of Fantastic Beasts characters to List of Fantastic Beasts cast members or the other way round? I kind of feel that we have more content here, and "characters" feels more natural to me than "cast members", also seeing that there is some spinoff into (and from) other media. So if there was to be a merge and it was up to me, I'd merge List of Fantastic Beasts cast members here. (And there is of course the other option as suggested by Adam Cuerden to merge List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to Fantastic Beasts. In case you would support that, how would that influence your merge opinion?) Daranios (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. "characters" does feel better. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (film series)[edit]

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

The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and Romania. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaadi Impossible[edit]

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Telefilms: (Page for director is a Redirect) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not. Plenty of good refs which indicates notability [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] Libraa2019 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, But there's no mention whatsoever of the subject in sources # 1, 2 and 4, Source # 3, though OK for WP:V, but insufficient for GNG because its WP:ROTM coverage. As for source # 5, SomethingHaute is a WordPress blog per this, which isn't deemed a RS. Source # 6 is only a WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Spoon of Chocolate[edit]

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

Article about a not-yet-released film, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of enough production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films.
There's a common, but erroneous, belief that the WP:NFF section of WP:NFILM grants an automatic presumption of notability to every film that enters the production pipeline the moment shooting has started on it, even if that's basically the only notability claim the article contains -- but what NFF actually says is that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."
That is, "notable once principal photography has commenced" is a special criterion that applies to very high-profile films (such as Marvel or Star Wars films) that get such a depth and range production coverage that they'd probably still remain notable even if they failed to ever see release at all, while the bar that most normal films actually have to clear is that they've actually been released and reviewed by film critics.
But what we have for referencing here is one casting announcement and one glancing mention that the idea was in the works 12 years ago in an article about the director's prior film, which isn't nearly enough coverage to get the NFF treatment.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when the film finally sees release, but simply single-sourcing that production has commenced isn't "inherently" notable in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are 2 reliable sources that are not blogs discussing the film, The New York Times a newspaper company that exists since 1851 and The Hollywood Reporter, the biggest Hollywood trade in the business. So no the sources aren't unreliable, so your argument about deleting the page are invalid.KingArti (talk) KingArti (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also I provided a 3rd source that filming is actually happening as we speak. KingArti (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, the base notability bar for films is not that production has started; the base notability bar for films is that they have been released to the public and garnered reviews from film critics. And as I noted above, one of the two footnotes that were in this article at the time of nomination was not coverage about this film, but a glancing mention that the basic idea for this film was in the germination stage 12 years ago in an article about a different film, and thus it does not support the notability of this film at all.

The potential exception to the regular notability criteria is for films that can be shown as special cases of much greater notability than the norm, and just two hits of coverage is not enough to get there. Nobody said anything about the sources being unreliable — what I said was that there isn't enough sourcing to exempt this from the normal notability criteria for films. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Existing significant coverage in reliable sources includes the articles quoted in the article + (1st page of a one-click search.....) :

etc. So this meets the general requirements for notability imv.

A redirect to RZA#Filmmaking should have obviously been considered anyway......-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable, it is stating that they do not show a notable production period, i.e. since April 2024. All sources published before that do not contribute to satisfying WP:NFF as that was development or pre-production. The question comes down to this: If the film were cancelled tomorrow and never released, what can we say about the production of the film? I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. I'm fairly inclusionist, and I consider this one pretty close, but I think we could easily wait for slightly more coverage. Draftification is a better WP:ATD option than a redirect in my opinion because I feel it's easier to add new content there than getting lost in a redirect history. KingArti is also very active in Draft space, so I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion. -2pou (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable? OK. Good, then, let's keep this. Sources published before filming started are absolutely as relevant as those published recently! I don't understand what notable production period means. A film is judged notable or not. And sources back the claim that it is notable, or not. Time has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia happens to consider films whose filming started are more likely to be notable (or simply to exist at all as films) than those whose filming hasn't started. It makes sense but that does not invalidate sources from before the moment filming started, when filming does indeed start!!! I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. Do you consider the cast, genre, premise and production history of a film non-significant? I don't. Finally, I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion, maybe not, but you feel it's a risk worth mentioning here, though. I concur it's as easy for users who know the draft exists, to edit it, as it is to edit a section dedicated to the film, in the article about the director. But not for newcomers. And if facilitating new contributions concerning the film is a concern (and a fair one, in terms of Wikipedia's raison d'être), a Keep seems the best solution (not to mention the possibility of good faith creations of articles such as OSoC (upcoming film) or OSoC (RZA), etc.). Anyway, thank you for your input, and sorry if this was too long and inappropriate. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The permanent notability of a film that's still in the production pipeline is not established by showing a couple of hits of casting or production announcements — every single film that ever entered the production pipeline at all can always pass that test. Even films that never get completed or released at all, in order to actually pass the primary notability criteria for films, would pass that loose a reading of NFF and have to be kept forever — so no film would ever be subject to the main notability criteria for films at all if just a small handful of production coverage were enough to bump a film from "regular criteria" to "NFF criteria", because no film that enters production ever fails to generate that small handful.

So "the production is itself notable" is not passed by every film that can show one or two hits of casting or production coverage — it's passed only by films that get Marvel/Star Wars volumes of production coverage, to the point that even if the film were to collapse and never come out at all it would probably still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. The Batgirl remake that got shelved last year is an example of that level of production coverage; most films which just get run of the mill coverage are not. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: With all due respect, but if the standard is that only major blockbusters like Disney films can have articles retained, then approximately 80% of current unreleased film articles would need to be deleted. This would be quite confusing for editors, as it raises questions about where exactly the notability bar should be set. Do only Marvel films count as notable? What about DC? What about blockbusters of other big companies like Paramount's Mission Impossible 8 or Universal's Gladiator 2? And what about art house films? Should all of them not be allowed to create independent articles until they are released? These types of questions could go on endlessly. The thing is, not all editors have the same keen judgment when it comes to determining notability. In reality, it can be a highly subjective assessment that varies from person to person. The original purpose of NFF was to provide clear criteria to help prevent these kinds of disputes. As long as a film has checked the boxes, it should be allowed to create an article. I'm concerned that adopting such a restrictive notability standard through this AFD could set a bad precedent. It could lead to many controversial deletions of articles about major film projects, simply because some editors don't find the coverage "significant" enough. Therefore, I think as long as an article meets NFF, it should be retained. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I beg to differ, as I believe the nominator has misinterpreted WP:NFF. The nominator cited the third paragraph in NFF to argue that despite a film having begun shooting, with confirmations from reliable sources, the article should not exist. But if we review the guideline carefully, it states that a film (although it has begun filming) should generally not have an article unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. So this is where the reliable sources' confirmation mentioned in the first paragraph comes into play. If films have been confirmed by sources as having begun filming, it can be considered as fulfilling the notability guidelines (in other words, GNG), and be allowed to have its own article. The sentence the nominator cited is more likely to refer to a film that has already begun filming, but the production isn't covered by any independent, secondary, reliable sources - in such cases, the film should not have an article as it fails the notability guidelines. There could be various reasons for this, such as the film not being notable enough for secondary sources to cover, or the production companies concealing details for marketing purposes. Regardless of the reason, these films no doubt fail to meet the requirements of NFF and should not have an article, even though the commencement of filming has already begun in reality and may be supported by primary sources. As long as a film has been confirmed by multiple RS, having completed pre-production and moved on to shooting, it should be allowed to have an independent article as it has ticked the boxes. I understand the concern about Wikipedia being flooded with pre-mature film articles poorly sourced with media articles that only have passing mentions merely about a film's commencement of filming. But in this case, the film has numerous secondary sources providing SIGCOV on the production details and filming plans (as provided by Mushy Yank), as well as additional coverage about the film being conceptualized by RZA years ago. This makes it not one of the marginal cases we were concerned about, and it is safe to cite WP:NFF exactly as the reason why the film should be kept.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as any film that ever enters production without being able to show at least one or two hits of coverage — casting annoucements can always be found somewhere, at least one hit of verification that photography has started can always be found somewhere, for every single film that has ever entered the production pipeline regardless of whether it ever came out the other end as a finished film or not. So if that were the distinction between regular criteria and NFF, then every film that entered the production pipeline would always pass NFF, and no film would ever actually have to meet the regular criteria at all anymore.

So the test is not passed by a film showing a handful of production coverage, and requires a film to show significantly more production coverage than films in production are routinely expected to get — as in, so much coverage that even if the film collapsed and never came out it would probably remain permanently notable as a failed production anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: That is not necessarily true. A recent example that comes to mind is the Hong Kong film The Dream, the Bubble and the Shadow, for which a trailer was presented at an exhibition of the production company with a projected release date of 2024, so it is most likely that the film has already finished production (if not, at least filming has already started), but every detail was concealed for marketing purposes, not even with the main cast revealed. So in this case, the film should not have its article until it has been officially released. (Despite there being numerous media articles reporting on the trailer, and some primary sources, like the filming plans of the production companies may support the fact that the film has already begun shooting) Also, I have actually voted Redirect in another AFD of an article written by the same editor, because in that case, the film literally only has two sources merely covering the commencement of filming and the composition of cast and crew. In that case, I think it does not demonstrate enough notability. But in this case, from the sources Mushy Yank presented, there are actually quite a lot more coverage on the production other than the original announcement. For instance, RZA has conceptualized the project 13 years ago, covered by Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly and Black Film and TV, and there have been additional casting choices recently in May, see Deadline Hollywood and The Hindu. I really share your thoughts on barring pre-mature film articles from flooding Wikipedia, but I have reservations on whether this is really a marginal case that we were concerned about. It can still be filed for deletion if the film was scrapped, it is never too late. I agree to disagree, but I think there is enough to fulfill NFF at this point and this article should be kept. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Mammolotti[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE. No in-depth coverage. Can't find anything about him online except an IMDB page. Clear friend a ^💬 21:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Various awards and nominations for Best cinematographer. (https://www.inventaunfilm.it/sei-premi-in-cerca-d-autore-2021-autore-dell-anno-gianni-mammolotti/articoli16539 ; http://www.ilquotidiano.it/articoli/2005/09/25/44313/assegnati-i-4-esposimetri-doro-per-il-premio-gianni-di-venanzo ; https://www.daviddidonatello.it/motore-di-ricerca/cercavincitori2.php?idsoggetto=1679&vin= ; https://www.sherlockmagazine.it/index.php/2942/l-aquila-una-citta-in-nero) May meet WP:ANYBIO. ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times") -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) (edited as there is only 1 Donatello nomination I can verify not more, although the Italian WP mentions 2 (which is not >2) but he has received other awards)[reply]
I won't say these sources you mention are reliable. I am particularly interested in the award citation. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: On the basics of WP:ANYBIO. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per ANYBIO. The subject's lengthy body of work (as indicated by IMDB and verified somewhat by applied and presented sources) justifies this article, and provides the barest direct detailing. The many awards also seem to indicate this is more than just another working professional, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

Film[edit]

Mythology of The Librarian[edit]

Slowpoke Rodriguez[edit]

Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster[edit]

Prasads Multiplex[edit]

BoOzy' OS and the Cristal Gem[edit]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters[edit]

Imperium (film series)[edit]

Shaadi Impossible[edit]

One Spoon of Chocolate[edit]

Gianni Mammolotti[edit]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Categories[edit]

Templates[edit]