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

Surly Squirrel

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

All the sources are movie reviews and not about the character, this article shouldn't exist in the first place. Toby2023 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Nut Job per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Nut Job - There does not appear to be significant coverage on the character himself that would warrant a separate article - even the sources being used are just movie reviews for the Nut Job films rather than any substantial coverage on the character. Redirecting to the first movie is a viable WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Country (1986 film)

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

Article about a never-released (or at least never verifiably released) film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific notability criteria (awards, box-office success, third-party attention paid to them by journalists and film critics in the media) that generally require the film to have been released and seen by the general public.
But one of the two footnotes here is a short blurb in a book which confirms that this was never released, and the other is an even shorter blurb in the student newspaper of the university where parts of this film were apparently shot (and where this film's director was an alumnus) -- so one of the sources isn't fully independent of the film for the purposes of counting as WP:GNG-worthy independent third-party coverage, and the other one isn't substantive enough to confer passage of GNG by itself if it's the only independent third-party sourcing this film has.
As I don't have access to archives of Australian media coverage from the 1980s, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with such access can find better coverage to salvage the article with, but simple existence isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt an unreleased film from having to have more than just two short blurbs of coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Flaus#Filmography: and add the book source from the article or refer to (more or less equivalent) Australian film, 1978-1992 : a survey of theatrical features, p. 368, indicating the role and, if necessary, other members of cast/crew (Warhead Films. Producers: Angus Caffrey, Ali Kayn. Scriptwriters: Angus Caffrey, Ali Kayn. Director of photography: Ray Boseley. Composer: Stephen Bates. Cast: John Flaus (Danby, Danby, Danby and Danby), Susanna Lobez (Angela Jeffries), Frank Percy (Milton Stephenson), Richard Hutson (Edmund Montague), Susie Arnold (Marjorie Allsop)) (Is listed on the target page) (FWIW that book indicates 1985) -Mushy Yank. 16:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Last One (film)

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

WP:TOOEARLY. Draftify. This article looks like a PR work for Lokesh Kumar if anything. No indication that the film started filming or is going to release anytime soon. The director's page mentions that this film is in preproduction. DareshMohan (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lokesh_Kumar#Filmography: until more is known. -Mushy Yank. 13:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 13:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanvaas

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

Upcoming film with no independent or secondary sources. Draftified to allow for more development but immediately restored to mainspace. All the sources are sponsored content or press releases. bonadea contributions talk 07:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. bonadea contributions talk 07:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: release in a month, notable cast and director; coverage exists: it is not independent but includes verification of cast,, plot, director's ideas in interviews (https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/bollywood/nana-patekar-utkarsh-sharma-journey-gets-renamed-to-vanvaas-exclusive-article-111905151 https://www.aninews.in/news/entertainment/bollywood/this-topic-touches-600-crore-people-director-anil-sharma-on-his-new-project-vanvaas-with-nana-patekar20241019232620/) etc, so that redirecting or draftifying for a month does not seem completely necessary (Deletion would be disruptive and I am absolutely opposed to that outcome.) but if other users disagree with a plain keep, then redraftify. -Mushy Yank. 13:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 13:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, both sources are in the article (more than once I think — there's a lot of duplicate sources in there, and a lot of disruptive refbombing with more and more copies of the same crap advertorials) and they are worse than useless. Unless there are independent sources there shouldn't be an article. --bonadea contributions talk 16:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karma - When Destiny Strikes Back

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

No sources meeting WP:SIGCOV or even minimally satisfying WP:NFSOURCES have been found, fails WP:GNG. The provided sources offer only trivial mentions of the movie. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Odisha. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anubhav_Mohanty#Filmography: or to List of Odia films of 2024 (but the latter does not exist yet (although it would be useful; see category; and the first mentions the film) (https://www.mycitylinks.in/ollywoods-dussehra-dhamaka-2024 ; https://www.orissapost.com/four-odia-flicks-to-clash-at-box-office/ for verification) -Mushy Yank. 21:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Netflix exclusive international distribution programming

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

By their own admission, the pages here do NOT list Netflix programming, merely content that it has a licence for in specific territories. In the same way that we would not list programming created by, say, Disney on a list of programming on an international channel that it has exclusive rights for in that territory, say BBC, we should not be listing it here. WP:NOTDIRECTORY; WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --wooden superman 14:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. --wooden superman 14:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

--wooden superman 14:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPLITLIST applies and WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."; clearly the case here. (and I'm sorry but the scope, range and detail of Netflix's distribution has been the subject of coverage as a set, making the list notable anyway.... Start with World Cinema On Demand: Global Film Cultures in the Era of Online Distribution. (2022) Bloomsbury Publishing, p. 200; and Baker, D., Balanzategui, J., Sandars, D. (2023). Netflix, Dark Fantastic Genres and Intergenerational Viewing: Family Watch Together TV. Taylor & Francis (passim).., -Mushy Yank. 19:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is plainly a WP:NOTDIR violation and much better handled with categories rather than a page the average reader is never going to get near, or if they do, fail to understand what the list describes outside 'things on Netflix' as the introduction is badly explained and obtuse. Nate • (chatter) 19:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that categories are also inappropriate as it is not WP:DEFINING for content that Netflix does not produce itself. --wooden superman 20:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films released by Psychopathic Video

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

Unreferenced for 10 years, most of the releases are hardly notable except for about four of them that can be mentioned at Psychopathic Records#Psychopathic Video. WP:NOTCATALOG --wooden superman 14:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Psychopathic Records#Psychopathic Video but that article being a B-class rather long article, the merge should be discussed on talk page and if judged unnecessary then Keep per WP:SPLITLIST. Sources can be added and unsourced material removed but that seems to be a cleanup issue.-Mushy Yank. 22:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalabam

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No reliable reviews from Rediff.com and Sify.com [1]. The only 2 reliable sources are passing mentions. DareshMohan (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. -Mushy Yank. 09:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2008, a standard solution for articles about released films when cast is notable, content verifiable and the director and writer have no page. Preserves history and can be reverted if sources are found. Thanks (NB- the film is listed there).-Mushy Yank. 10:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in Google search result to show that this passes WP:NFILM. The two sources in the article gave just single mentions each and with nothing in search result, there is nothing to sustain it. Mekomo (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2008, as quoted by Mushy Yank...Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sudheesh#2000s. Lots of evidence that the film exists. The other page List of Malayalam films of 2008 is poor with no sources and that is why redirect to actor's page is more better (imo). RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur Chauhan

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

Subject was twice declined in AfC and also fails NACTOR, as the subject has not had significant roles in notable films or shows. There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources apart from the WP:OR added by User:Saurang Vara who denies any COI despite being familiar with the subject's personal information. The subject's role in Chhello Divas does not appear to be significant and none of the other films have substantial content to be considered when evaluating Mayur Chauhan according to NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Gujarat. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say his 3 roles in productions that have a page on this WP are not significant? And why should Karsandas Pay & Use be considered non-notable? I found some coverage about Saiyar Mori Re too. He seems to meet WP:NACTOR, -Mushy Yank. 13:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned films do not meet WP:NFOE/ WP:NFILM. Karsandas Pay & Use has two reviews, one from TOI with an unknown critic and another from an unknown website. Saiyar Mori Re has no reception section and Samandar (film) has two local reviews! From a WP:BEFORE search, none of these films have been distributed outside Gujarat. Just because these films have articles on Wikipedia does not mean they are notable in the first place to be used as evaluation criteria for Mayur Chauhan. Either way, there is zero coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a critic writes for a national publication such as Times of India he is considered nationally known as per discussions at WP:NFILM Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discusisons on What is a "nationally-known critic"? and "Nationally-known critic" as it relates to films of India aren't closed and there is no consensus either. Let me know if I have missed any archived discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject has relatively moderate significant coverage for his films Saiyar Mori Re, Samandar (film), and Karsandas Pay and Use. As the lead actor in all these projects, the combined coverage is sufficient to pass WP:ACTOR.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the coverage though? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azaad (2025 film)

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

No significant coverage (SIGCOV) has been found. The film is set to be released next year, so there are no reviews available, failing to meet the criteria of WP:NFILM. GrabUp - Talk 07:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Film. GrabUp - Talk 07:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)\[reply]
Comment: If reviews were the chief criteria for having a film article, all upcoming films listed at List of American films of 2025 should also be nominated for deletion. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk2.0: That’s one of the important criteria currently being used in AfDs related to films, which is why I mentioned it. However, the film still does not pass GNG. GrabUp - Talk 08:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abhishek Kapoor: until more independent coverage exists (and then revert the redirect and expand) but not opposed to Keep (release announced in January; notable cast and crew, known premise) if other users think it's OK. -Mushy Yank. 10:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:NFF and WP:DRAFTREASON #3. Brief coverage of the film's upcoming release is not enough to warrant an article now, but it is reasonable to expect more coverage upon its release. Redirecting is also okay but not my preferred choice, as there are multiple reasonable targets. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I am okay with draftification. The film is said to be releasing in January, nearly one or two months, and I also expect multiple reviews upon its release. GrabUp - Talk 04:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. HCLT (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF. Tag the draft with the appropriate draft/movie/not yet, too, please. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Am (2024 film)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM; created by an account representing the film's production company Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This film does not pass notability guidelines as its citation are primary sources. Searching for sources is difficult because the title of the film is similar to other very notable subjects. It fails WP:NFILM. Mekomo (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Hawaii. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The film looks great and the poster is impressive, but there's just no coverage for the film. Most student and/or short films tend to fly under the radar, this is no exception. I hope that everyone involved goes on to great things and that we can eventually create articles for them, but right now the movie just isn't notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature

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

The topic for this list is unencyclopedic. While it is possible to find a list of submitted films by year, this is trivial information – there is a major difference between being nominated (or even shortlisted) and merely being eligible. (As a comparison, would we allow a list of every Best Picture–eligible film? I suspect not even though sources exist.) See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Film, and Comics and animation. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's not indiscriminate; the inclusion criterion is clear. It's not trivial; it's rather an important topic and the lead section is clear about what it is. It's not unsourced. Saying it's unencyclopaedic seems to be a personal view. I say it's encyclopaedic because it's part of the detailed history of animation and animated film awards and it's manageable. -Mushy Yank. 10:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify at least the first point, WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While there is a clear selection criteria, that criteria is broad and conveys minimal significance. That's why I find the list indiscriminate and not suitable for inclusion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per WP:MILL and WP:NOTNEWS. There's essentially no bar for submitting eligible films, and studios generally will just submit stuff even if they have no realistic chance of winning (or even being nominated) whatsoever. While lists of eventual nominees are almost surely of sufficient notability (and noteworthiness), lists of submissions are not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at Category:Academy Awards lists, I'd recommend nominating other such submission lists for the same reasons. Of particular note are those two not-so-little subcats at the top of foreign-language film submissions, which break down even further by type. There are about an extra 200 lists in those that could stand to be mass nominated for deletion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why did you twice remove the AfD template from the page?~~ ~~And saying it is not nominated when you just voted here is not evidently consistent...~~.. -Mushy Yank. 20:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC); edited 21:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template was removed from List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film, which has not been mentioned anywhere in this deletion discussion up to this point. It would be out of procedure to add that article to this nomination after the discussion opened. I will remove the template from that page shortly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My bad! My apologies, 35.139.154.158! You were right and I blindly trusted the link. sorry. But who added it to the page in the first place and why??-Mushy Yank. 21:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Espngeek, why did you add it there?? -Mushy Yank. 21:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the Animated Feature is about to be deleted, why not the Animated Short Film? Espngeek (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, feel free to nominate it (it might look as if you were trying to make a point, given your !vote below, but it’s your call). Still, you had added the link formatted by RunningTiger123 for this discussion to a page that was not nominated for deletion and that was quite confusing (even disruptive, I must be honest with you)! You cannot do that, I’m afraid and ”merge submissions” (bundle nominations) as you suggest below would have been possible if the nominator had wished to do so but it is not the case and in tems of procedure and good practices, your copy-paste of the template was a very bad idea. Not possible anymore with this page then. Thank you! -Mushy Yank. 21:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What Oscar-related list do you consider important? Espngeek (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not this one, clearly, since it's up for nomination. Do you have an actual rationale behind your keep !vote, preferably addressing the concerns that have been raised by the nomimator and by me? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're asking me, I would consider lists such as the nominees at Academy Award for Best Animated Feature or the submissions in Category:Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award submissions by country suitable for inclusion. Those films have been specifically selected for further recognition, which gives them more significance than merely checking the boxes to be eligible does. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I merge the submissions onto Best Animated Feature article? Espngeek (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the issue is not whether or not this has standalone notability; the issue is that the information is so trivial that it's not worth mentioning anywhere as a matter of editorial discretion, whether that's in a standalone list or in another article/list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this one so trivial? Espngeek (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Espngeek in short, no (see above). You would have to initiate another AfD but can I suggest you wait for this one to be closed so that we know what others think? Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 21:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The argumment used could also be used to delete the 97 pages of the international feature films submissions, since those films were also selected for further recognition from AMPAS, and most of the countries "generally will just submit stuff even if they have no realistic chance of winning". This list is vital to map the competition, especially now that AMPAS is even more international than ever. Martineden83 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be clear – I am not arguing to delete the international feature film lists in my comment you linked. When I said "selected for further recognition", I meant that a party separate from the filmmakers (whether AMPAS or some other industry group) had picked it, instead of the filmmakers submitting it. That is a major difference between those lists and this one. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, the International submissions are fine, yet the Animated Feature subs are unencyclopedic and questionably trivial? Espngeek (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree that the international films are equivalent – those submissions were formally selected by each country's film committee, while in this list, producers can self-nominate whatever animated films they made. Reywas92^Talk 16:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if producers were capable of "self-nominate" their own movies (which they are not, the submitted films are shortlisted only after reaching the category rules), the annual list is gennerally small (last year it barely had 30 films) and does not include all animated features released in the year. Martineden83 (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A note on terminology since you said "shortlisted" – these are not shortlisted submissions like in other categories (example). A more apt comparison would be to compare this list to the list of films eligible for Best Picture. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see there's been disagreement about the international lists being in the same boat as this one. I'm happy to concede that point, but it doesn't really change my view about this particular list. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War 2 (2025 film)

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

Moved to draft based on AfD discussion. Multiple attempts at recreation since that time with several of them being moved back to draft space. Now another SPA creating it in mainspace. Nothing notable about the production and not scheduled for release until a year from now. References are mainly announcements, but again, nothing notable about the production so falls under WP:TOOSOON. Recommend delete and protecting the title at this point. CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to War_(2019_film)#Sequel: but given filming has begun and production has received coverage, not really opposed to Keep. Opposed to deletion. Mushy Yank (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Mushy Yank (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Likely to become notable in the near future.4meter4 (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON per above reason TheSlumPanda (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, while I do agree that most sources I found on the web are mainly announcements that are some form of WP:ROUTINE news, there exist sources such as [2] and [3] which do not fall into the category, so neither deletion nor even redirection would be feasible. Considering the the movie is set to be released in August 2025, it would be fair to just draftify the page, salt the title and move protect the draft. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we already have Draft:War 2, Draft:War 2 (film) and Draft:War 2 (2025 film) - so I don't know where you would "Draftify" this to, but the four need combining (and NO, I am not volunteering) - Arjayay (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It has been disruptive and continues to be. The drafts need nuked and title protected. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the question of what to do with the plethora of drafts and where this one would go needs addressing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stuart Lewis Yates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've added two guardian articles as extra references, the two Guardian articles are reviewing films represented by MSC and do not directly mention Paul Yates or the company, but they demonstrate MSC’s significant activity in the U.K. This activity occurred under Yates' leadership as founder and executive, indirectly highlighting his role in the company’s reach and success. While this may not fully satisfy WP for a standalone biography, it underscores the impact of MSC, which should be taken into account when evaluating Yates’ contributions and emerging influence in the film industry. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage. The references in the article are primarily about the organization and do not mention him at all. The only information about him is one .gov listing as a company officer and his own writing. Lamona (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the "delete" rationale. The coverage from Screen Daily is significant, as it is a recognized authority in the film industry. The article specifically mentions Paul Yates in the context of founding his company and details how it was formed, thus establishing his role and relevance. This aligns with Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.

If additional sources are required, I am happy to contribute further research to strengthen the article. However, I believe the Screen Daily coverage alone demonstrates notability, as it is both independent and detailed. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very short article (14 sentences) in which a goodly portion is quotes from him. It is not enough to establish notability. Lamona (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - if none of the sources show significant coverage, I’m not sure what purpose a merger would serve. Many filmmakers, including my partner of 17 years, have had films screened at Cannes; it’s not automatically notable. I’m looking at his posters right now on the wall. It’s not a big deal. Bearian (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to clarify that Paul Yates is not a filmmaker. His notability comes from his work as the founder of The Mise En Scène Company (MSC), as highlighted in independent, reliable sources like Screen Daily. These sources discuss his role in establishing and shaping MSC, which directly addresses Wikipedia's notability criteria. Comparing him to filmmakers misses the point of the article, which is focused on his contributions as a business founder and media professional. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately this is similar to a high school head teacher or a university professor - the organisation is notable and they avean important, pivotal, irreplaceable role in the organisation as well as a figurehead so are mentioned, quoted and pictured frequently in connection with that, but unless they have something making them out individually from the many other professors / headteachers / business founders / media professionals, there isn't enough to justify a biography article here. Crowsus (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry but I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the analogy of a head teacher or university professor. The distinction is that Paul Yates founded The Mise En Scène Company, which inherently ties the company’s notability to his individual activities and vision. Unlike a head teacher, who operates within an existing framework, Paul Yates created the framework itself and has been directly involved in shaping the company’s growth and success. Reliable sources, such as Screen Daily, reference his specific actions, including founding the company and negotiating deals with notable entities like Signature Entertainment, 1091, and Bulldog Entertainment. This demonstrates that his individual contributions are pivotal and worthy of recognition on their own merits. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources for him outside the sphere of Mise en Scene? Crowsus (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are government records listing his name and involvement with companies, as well as a published piece in an online travel magazine. While these might not independently establish notability, they contribute to demonstrating his activity and public presence in professional contexts beyond MSC. However, the core of his notability lies in the independent recognition of his foundational and operational role at MSC, which aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines for notable business figures.

While the majority of the independent coverage focuses on Paul Yates' role with The Mise En Scène Company, this is not unusual for business founders whose notability is tied to their entrepreneurial achievements. The sources, such as Screen Daily, are significant and reliable, explicitly highlighting his contributions, such as founding MSC and negotiating deals with major companies. This level of individual coverage goes beyond simply being "associated with" an organization. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern about additional sources, but I strongly believe Yates is well within the guidelines for notability. The key sources, such as Screen Daily, Deadline, Variety all provide independent, significant coverage of his role in founding and shaping The Mise En Scène Company, which directly satisfies Wikipedia’s requirements for business figures. While it’s true that he may not have an overwhelming number of sources outside MSC, the ones that exist are reliable and substantive enough to demonstrate his notability as a business founder.

To compare him to a head teacher or university professor misses the point: Yates is not just a figurehead or a leader within an existing organization; he created the organization and has had a direct impact on its growth and success. His role in negotiating high-profile deals with companies like Signature Entertainment and Bulldog Entertainment further distinguishes him.

It seems we are quibbling over the technicalities of what constitutes "significant" coverage, but I believe that within the context of Wikipedia’s guidelines, the available coverage clearly supports his notability. At this point, the focus should be on the substantive and independent recognition of his work, which is the primary measure of notability. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to focus on one of the sources the Screen Daily article provides clear evidence of Paul S.L. Yates’ notability through his active role in founding and shaping Mise en Scène Company (MSC). The article highlights Yates as a former Devilworks acquisitions coordinator, which establishes his background and expertise in the film industry. It further discusses how he and his co-founder met during their time working as night-shift porters at The Ritz London which is mad, and how, after being furloughed during the pandemic, they spent significant time developing MSC. This narrative not only emphasizes Yates' entrepreneurial initiative in response to the challenges of the pandemic but also underscores the active role he played in crafting MSC’s identity and strategy. The article also references the company's ethos, noting that Yates’ values of creativity, integrity, and passion were integral to its creation. This foundational leadership, along with the decision to launch MSC during a difficult period, positions Yates as a key figure behind the company’s success, demonstrating his independent notability in the film industry. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no issue whatsoever with your sincerity or tone, due to three replies - which are basically repeating yourself - to one question, at this point I refer you to WP:BLUDGEON. Crowsus (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HI, I didn't know about that thank you for the referral, I'll keep it mind in the future thanks. :) Demosthenes1999 (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Estonia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep: Poorly sourced, yes: cleanup issue. Fails NLIST? no, meets NLIST as the topic as a set has received coverage. (Thomson, C. (2007). Estonia - Culture Smart! The Essential Guide to Customs & Culture. Kuperard. for example or Noble, J., Williams, N., Gauldie, R. (1997). Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania(Keeling): Lonely Planet, p. 147, for a start) At least a redirect and merge to Cinema of Estonia seems warranted to preserve history. The topic would seem to be perfectly encyclopaedic, though.... Mushy Yank (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and how precisely and exactly is that list supposed to fall under NOTDIR? Mushy Yank (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears that the list topic has been discussed as a set in RS. That is all we need to prove WP:NLIST. Further, I don't think this list falls under any of the six criteria of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and those saying it does haven't actually discussed or connected the list to any one of the six standards for making that judgement. It's not a convincing argument as the list has a clearly defined scope that is relevant to the Cinema of Estonia. It's not a simple listing because of the RS coverage, and given that Estonian language films get played pretty much only in theaters in Estonia and the small geographic area its reasonable to list theaters in a single page for topical reasons. It's therefore not a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" or a "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization", or a "A resource for conducting business", or a "Genealogical entry", or an "Electronic program guides".4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too small for a whole article. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Cinema of Estonia until it is expanded. The references added to the article show it passes WP:NLIST in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NLIST. Could use with some expansion though. ExRat (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss You (film)

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because release is announced for late November, I would normally have suggested to keep this and I would have merged the draft into it .....but there are TWO drafts Draft:Miss You Movie (created yesterday, just before the article, same creator) and Draft:Miss You (film) by User:Gowthamaprabu (created 21. 10); the latter was declined by the nom. Read the following comment: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Miss You (film) instead.", said the nom of the present AfD when declining the page.....which, if I was the page creator, would make me think, the page discussed here is not concerned by deletion! Still as Gowthamaprabu's Draft was the first page to be created, I consider it should be the starting point so I suggest a merge of all three pages into Draft:Miss You (film). Premise is known, actors are notable, coverage for verification exists, so even if it's the other way around, I won't be shocked but declining the Draft and inviting its creator to expand a page and, an hour later or so, taking the said page to AfD is a bit confusing.Mushy Yank (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Robert McClenon and @Mushy Yank! Hope you're both doing well! I wanted to provide some context regarding the article Miss You (2024), which covers the upcoming film set for release at the end of November 2024. As mentioned transparently, I have been commissioned by the producers to edit and create content for this article, ensuring accurate representation of the movie. I’ve Confirmed that the official release date is November 29, 2024, though due to a lack of publicly available citations, I haven't specified the date in the article itself. I’ve included all available information with relevant citations, and I believe the content is accurate and complete as presented. If possible, I'd suggest we retain the article and continue to improve it together. We could even consider merging it with Draft: Miss You (Film) by User:Gowthamaprabu to consolidate information. Meena1998 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Draft:Miss You (film) since the film's release is near, let's wait. Once it hits theaters, it is expected to get more coverage and critical reviews. You can then update the page and publish it through the AFC route. For now, let's merge its content into the declined draft:).Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to merge Miss You (film) article with my draft Draft:Miss You (film). Gowthamaprabu (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeing into the draft makes the most sense here. Both pages have good info and prose for a subject that may have easy sigcov in the near future but does not yet. Tessaract2^Hi! 13:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, information in this article can be merged in Draft:Miss You (film) with reliable sources, and then the draft can be submitted for AFC review. RangersRus (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daveed (2025 film)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect to Antony_Varghese#Films: listed there; given existing coverage, the fact that filming is wrapped, the cast, notable and details about productions are verifiable, I am not opposed to Keep if other users agree it can be kept (opposed to deletion, not necessary in the present case). Mushy Yank (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mushy Yank. Yes, I believe this article is relevant to keep on Wikipedia because the release date has been announced, and the film has already wrapped. Therefore, deletion would not be the right decision. Thank you for your comment. Arjusreenivas (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would be fine, until the film has released. I mean, draftifying would have worked, too, but... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The article meets 4 out of 5 of the WP:NFF production guidelines. Enough information is available to support article. Also it can be classified under the "2025 films, Upcoming films, Upcoming Malayalam-language films" category. Arjusreenivas (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "5 production guidelines" are you talking about? There is nothing unclear about WP:NFF: films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me finish the sentence you're referring to, as it seems you might have missed it. The guideline states: "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." Out of the five guidelines of production: Development, Pre-production, Production, Post-production—four have been covered. The only stage not fully met is Distribution. That's why 4 out of 5 criteria for an unreleased film to qualify for an article have been fulfilled. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 21:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The film has successfully completed its production phase, and reliable sources confirm that it is currently in the post-production and marketing stages, with only the final release pending. The project meets 4 out of 5 of the WP:NFF production guidelines. Sufficient information is available to justify an independent article, and it can be classified under the "2025 films, Upcoming films, Upcoming Malayalam-language films" category.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I believe there are no notability issues with this article, so it should be retained. From my review, the movie is scheduled for release in two months, and it’s not from a new production or featuring unknown actors. Thank you for your contribution. Arjusreenivas (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, really don’t see why we wouldn’t. Has a release date. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Underground

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that releases from this boutique label appear in Sight and Sound best of the year lists[4][5] (among other things) should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --wooden superman 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:34, 16 November 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

Templates