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. |
Points of interest related to Film on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Style – To-do |
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.
watch |
Scan for Film AfDs |
- Related deletion sorting
Film
[edit]- E certificate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Stub that is already covered WP:WITHIN British Board of Film Classification. Only has two references, both of which are primary, and coverage on Google Books, Google Scholar, and JSTOR is limited to very brief mentions within broader discussions of the BBFC; little more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. Some of the content here could be merged to British Board of Film Classification, but most of the content of this article is already covered there, much more concisely. Has no more WP:SIGCOV than the U-15 ratings. Masskito (talk)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Unnaiye Kadhalipen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Most of the sources are relating to Anjali Nair's wedding and not the film itself. The rest are just passing mentions. Other than the first Kungumam source (which doesn't give much), every other source is a passing mention. The title is just a general way of stating I love you [1] [2]. The film had one unreliable Filmibeat source [3], which was about the marriage incident, which is listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Generally_used_sources.
Add two reviews (preferably reliable if possible) or reliable sources. DareshMohan (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Tamil films of 2010: as a standard alternative to deletion for released films with notable cast and coverage. Not opposed to keep if other users think coverage about production is sufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I Love the '90s (American TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is one of a set of articles on a TV show. Note that all of those have only one single reference--look at I Love the '90s: Part Deux, and you will find a little pop culture article that really only helps I Love.... The articles themselves are nothing but catalog info at best, all OR/trivia. One of the articles was created by a sock, User:Leviathan648, but I haven't checked them all. A redirect would be fine. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: these articles are the longtime hobby horses of this editor, going back years; note the edit summaries in which they threaten other editors (see this one). I think I'll ask for a range block for disruptive, unverified, trivial edits if they continue. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to I Love... In this form, it's literally a 'type-what-I-see' recap, which we long ago depreciated as not proper, nor sourced, and there are surely non-SEO sources for this show where we can write a short and descriptive summary of each episode. Right now though it just is not a proper article style at all. Nate • (chatter) 21:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Coverage exists: https://www.today.com/popculture/vh1-its-too-early-love-90s-wbna5345119 ; https://www.mlb.com/reds/tickets/concerts/love-the-90s ; Richards, R. W. (2021). Cinematic TV: Serial Drama Goes to the Movies. United States: Oxford University Press, p. 40, for example. Also WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- The Today source is okay, but that mlb source isn't even close to significant coverage. You don't have enough to meet the GNG yet... Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- The mlb was one of various sources to indicate the existence of the tour that seemed to be associated with the show, in case users want to develop a proper article and not just a list, but, checking other articles (one mentioning VH1, though,) that may not be the case (unofficial tour?) and that particular article is certainly not great anyway. Feel free to strike it out.
- Other sources include, for example, the following bizarre article (only partially focusing on one episode) https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sophie-b-hawkins-90s-queer-backlash_n_637c00d8e4b0f04daf560ab3 or this no less bizarre short piece: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/secrets-revealed-during-vh1s-i-love-the-90s
- Also mentioned in various books about pop culture. Brief article on TV Guide: https://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/i-love-the-90s/1030128553/
- Most of all, Chicago Tribune has https://www.chicagotribune.com/2004/07/13/vh1-finds-no-passion-with-i-love-the-90s/ which might seal the deal but I cannot open it now. If anyone manages, let us know what it's like.
- General article: https://www.theringer.com/tv/2019/9/30/20887782/vh1-i-love-the-series-80s-90s-nostalgia for example to indicate notability of the general set, of which this can be considered a detailed list existing for navigation purpose. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- The Today source is okay, but that mlb source isn't even close to significant coverage. You don't have enough to meet the GNG yet... Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, History, and United States of America. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment This nom seems to have struck a nerve as 2603:6000:D2F0:3680:CCCB:404C:672A:58C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is actively trying to restore unsourced content. Nate • (chatter) 00:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Average Student Nani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NFILM. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: multiple bylined reviews cited (does therefore meet WP:NFILM and/or the general requirements for notability). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: This appears to have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to keep it.
- Mon Bhai (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Criticism of David Cross in Alvin and the Chipmunks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Even if this topic passes WP:GNG, it would then be a classic WP:NOPAGE case. This article is largely a compilation of blog posts, online comments, and celebrity gossip reporting. There may (or, quite possibly, may not) be a place for two sentences about this to be included at David Cross, but that's it -- at most. EEng 22:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete - I agree with EEng that this is mostly gossip and does not deserve its own page. I think a good solution is a sentence about the Chipwreck producer, and maybe another sentence could be added to the David Cross page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpuddin (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as unencyclopedic gossip. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep - As the creator and major contributor to the article, I narrowly (albeit still) encourage the retainment of this page. I had originally made this article where Alvin and the Chipmunks (film)#Response towards Cross used to look like this. I moved most of that content to its own article, adding Chipwrecked content as well. I guess I underestimated WP:SIGCOV; although there is commentary of blog activity, the sources on this article are generally fine (expect maybe the ScreenRant), so verifiability issues aren't a problem. If this doesn't deserve to be its own standalone article, it should be a redirect to David_Cross#Alvin_and_the_Chipmunks. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – any particularly mainstream coverage (e.g., maybe the LA Times article cited in the article) can be addressed in another article; coverage from smaller entertainment websites is generally trivial. See also WP:NOTGOSSIP. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- The Men Who Lost China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Similar to the recently deleted article on The World Without US by the same filmmaker, no signs of significant coverage. The article's current sourcing is not independent or significant, and I could not find any signs of further coverage after an online search (given that the film has less than 100,000 views on YouTube, I doubt that coverage exists). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Film. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- China's Century of Humiliation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Similar to the recently deleted article on The World Without US by the same filmmaker, no signs of significant coverage. The article's current sourcing is not independent or significant, and the best I found from a Google search is a forum review, which is not significant. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Film. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The forum review the nom mentions is about all I can find as well. I think if we had more reviews, this might be a weak keep, but there aren't any. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- List of Turkish films of 1972 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Almost all redlinks and tagged uncited for years. Either I have misunderstood the Wayback Machine or the cite on the Turkish article only goes as far as B Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Very Strong Keep: a perfectly standard list and an obviously notable topic anyway. I am absolutely opposed to the deletion of this. The number of red links is a mere cleanup issue, as is the lack of references. The fact that some articles about films (look at the number of blue links on the Turkish corresponding list, that goes to Zulüm (blue there)) have not been created yet is rather a good reason to keep this! "In 1972, Turkey was the third-largest film producer in the world with 300 feature films..." (Gronemeyer, Andrea, Film, Barron's, 1998, p. 147) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Can we assume that this message implies that the nominator feels their concerns have been reasonably addressed? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- As I know very little about the subject it would be good to wait for a third opinion I think Chidgk1 (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Can we assume that this message implies that the nominator feels their concerns have been reasonably addressed? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sphere Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be a push to get this into the mainspace. Attempted to clean up the promotional tone just added by IP but it seems to be WP:TNT territory. Since last deletion discussion, the only thing I see is an announcement of a purchase which is a routine announcement (followed by multiple sources engaging in churnalism) and falls short of meeting WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Companies, and Canada. CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Creator was notified via script. Pinging other previous participants @Timtrent:, @DoubleGrazing:, @Robert McClenon:, @Vanderwaalforces:, @Jumpytoo:, @JMWt:. For the references used other than I mention in the nomination, there is a great source assessment in the first deletion discussion.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see anything has changed from the previous AfD to make it pass WP:NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Of course there is a push by the company and their people to get it into mainspace. That is why some members of the Wikipedia community are pushing back. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - This is an improvement over the previous version, in that it no longer contains puffery. It now reads as if it was written by the corporate technical writer from the company's viewpoint. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Rammed full of "Sphere has announced" and doesn't even bother to hide the fact that it is an advert. Fails WP:GNG. Is WP:PROMOTION 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Still keep, it would be quite weird, in my opinion, if a production company which made series for major broadcasters wasn't notable. Previous AfD has an alternative source assessment which I agreed with, and I think the case is even stronger now. JMWt (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- comment It's hard to assess the prior alternative source assessment as the articles are not linked, but the three most promising sources from that assessment don't exactly pan out. Variety sources in the current article are about acquisition of Sienna, which is substantive and independent about Sienna but not very independent about Sphere. Same with Hollywood Reporter. Canadian Theater Review isn't linked in article and I couldn't find it on my own. What are you seeing that I'm not?Clicked through a bunch of sources, and they are either interviews or brief mentions, or deal announcements which I tend to think are generated from press releases. I can't find anything with my own searches (looked at Google Scholar, Google news, some targeted google web searches). I agree in principle a major company with real-world impact should have an article. But at this point all I have is WP:IAR and I'm not sure why we should go there for this article, which seems to be all based on corporate news and press releases. Oblivy (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well I don't look at it like that. I think they are notable because they are a producer of television and this is shown by coverage in independent third party sources. For example 1 is not just PR puff or interview (and I've made my views known on notability and interviews before) it's a piece of reportage by a named writer. And this isn't the only piece available. If this page somehow isn't kept then we are applying a GNG standard that isn't applied elsewhere. Which in my view isn't fair. JMWt (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can agree that the
VarietyDeadline interview is earned media. That's one.I'm not sure I understand your last sentence - yes, the NCORP notability standard is much higher and the way it's been applied to interviews is sometimes hard to defend (but the defenders of that application seem to have won that battle).Would like to see other views. I think you can see I'm not a hard no, but I find it really hard to get excited about an article that's all about deals. Oblivy (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)- On interviews, my view is that if a publication carries an interview, that shows the subject is notable in the opinion of the editor of the publication. (If they didn't think it was notable, why would they be covering it?) If it is a RS and the piece is clearly more than puff or a PR then for me that's an indication of notability.
- Fwiw the piece I offered was from Deadline. There are also pieces in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. It strikes me that this is more than enough to meet the GNG in normal circumstances.
- On "excitement", I just try to assess whether decent publications have covered the subject, my feelings about the contents of the article are irrelevant. JMWt (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can agree that the
- Well I don't look at it like that. I think they are notable because they are a producer of television and this is shown by coverage in independent third party sources. For example 1 is not just PR puff or interview (and I've made my views known on notability and interviews before) it's a piece of reportage by a named writer. And this isn't the only piece available. If this page somehow isn't kept then we are applying a GNG standard that isn't applied elsewhere. Which in my view isn't fair. JMWt (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- comment It's hard to assess the prior alternative source assessment as the articles are not linked, but the three most promising sources from that assessment don't exactly pan out. Variety sources in the current article are about acquisition of Sienna, which is substantive and independent about Sienna but not very independent about Sphere. Same with Hollywood Reporter. Canadian Theater Review isn't linked in article and I couldn't find it on my own. What are you seeing that I'm not?Clicked through a bunch of sources, and they are either interviews or brief mentions, or deal announcements which I tend to think are generated from press releases. I can't find anything with my own searches (looked at Google Scholar, Google news, some targeted google web searches). I agree in principle a major company with real-world impact should have an article. But at this point all I have is WP:IAR and I'm not sure why we should go there for this article, which seems to be all based on corporate news and press releases. Oblivy (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- The reason why publications would carry interviews is pretty much churnalism. Clicks, views, and filling their content calendar. Printing an interview is in no way an endorsement by a publication they feel the topic notable. It means that they feel it will get clicks. Interviews would required independent analysis of the information provided or it would not be considered to meet WP:ORGCRIT standards. With that in mind, the Variety and Deadline pieces, while interviews, DO provide independent analysis so even though they were interviews they would meet ORGCRIT (see my comments below as these counting towards notability in my opinion). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Article obviously does need significant cleanup for advertorialism, but making notable television series and films is obviously a valid notability claim for a production company. It's obviously terrible as written — I just had to add wikilinks to its three big multi-award-winning television series (Sort Of, Transplant and The Porter) that were mentioned in the article only as unlinked names, and the article is completely forgetting to even mention other important stuff like 19-2, Bad Blood, This Life, 1995 (big current box office smash with multiple current award nominations pending) and The Dishwasher. It's a bad article in its current form, you'll get no disagreement from me about that, but there's a lot more to this company, and a lot better sourcing available for it, than shown — in addition to the Variety and The Hollywood Reporter stuff described above, there's also plenty of coverage in publications like Playback and RealScreen, that might have been overlooked solely because non-Canadians haven't heard of them, and a company that has existed since 1984 in the francophone media sphere (pun semi-intended) before expanding into English content only within the past decade, there's also almost certainly a lot of coverage in French that would entail trawling BANQ instead of just a Google search alone.
Also, the page was created by a long-established Wikipedia editor who is not known to have direct personal connections with Sphere, so it isn't an obvious conflict of interest by the company (especially since I really deeply doubt that the company would forget to mention major, major things like 19-2, Bad Blood or 1995 at all.) Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC) - Weak Delete - This article does not speak for itself because it does not discuss independent coverage of the studio by reliable sources. It is written from the company's viewpoint, as if it were written by the corporate technical writer, describing what the company did, with no mention of third-party coverage. Reading like it was written by the corporate technical writer is not as bad as the previous version, which read as if it was written by a corporate marketeer, but it still does not address the need for third-party coverage. A reader who reads this article cannot be expected to view the 46 references that this article has been reference-bombed with to know why the company is thought to have corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've undertaken a major push to clean up the advertorialism and prune back the excessive citation overkill, so the article is now in a much, much better state. Again, we're talking about a company that's made a lot — and I mean a lot a lot, like dozens — of the most notable Canadian television shows and several important films in both English and French over at least the past two decades, so basic notability isn't in doubt here, and the quality of the article writing was the only problem. And since I'm Wikipedia's resident guru of all things Canadian film and television, my judgement of the notability status of a Canadian film and television production company should carry a lot of weight, since I'm the person who actually created a lot of our articles about the company's notable film and television productions in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate the cleanup on the page. If we can save something that is notable that is obviously better than simply deleting. Putting aside the fallacy of authority, this still needs to meet WP:NCORP as notability is not inherent simply for making films. If you can point out the sources you feel meet WP:ORGCRIT I will have another look and even withdraw the nomination should they support notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- No fallacy of authority needs to be set aside, as none was committed. And as for which sources support notability, I fail to see which sources currently present in the article don't, as they're all coverage about the company from reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I misread your original comment. It seemed as if you were asserting your vote should be given more weight than say, mine as the OP. For the references that do not meet ORGCRIT, let's just look at the last reference used on the page. It is a a routine announcement so fails the WP:CORPDEPTH portion of the guideline. Could not be considered for notability as it only verifies someone who is an executive there. Oblivy provided two sources below which are this and this. I see both of these are meeting WP:ORGCRIT. If there is at least one additional that goes into depth about the company that someone can provide, I will gladly withdraw the nomination and do the cleanup to the page, including removal or rewriting of the company-speak just added by the IP editor. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- The rule is not that every source in an article has to be of equal depth to establish notability — passage of GNG can be established both by sources that delve in depth and by a group of shorter sources that accumulate in number. So as long as a source represents third-party coverage about some aspect of the company in a reliable source, which virtually all of the footnotes do, it still contributes toward passage of GNG regardless of whether it's "deeper" or "lighter" coverage. Deeper coverage is of course valuable, but "lighter" coverage is still valid and GNG-building, especially since it can be highly subjective as to which side of the "deeper vs. lighter" line any given source even falls on in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I misread your original comment. It seemed as if you were asserting your vote should be given more weight than say, mine as the OP. For the references that do not meet ORGCRIT, let's just look at the last reference used on the page. It is a a routine announcement so fails the WP:CORPDEPTH portion of the guideline. Could not be considered for notability as it only verifies someone who is an executive there. Oblivy provided two sources below which are this and this. I see both of these are meeting WP:ORGCRIT. If there is at least one additional that goes into depth about the company that someone can provide, I will gladly withdraw the nomination and do the cleanup to the page, including removal or rewriting of the company-speak just added by the IP editor. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- No fallacy of authority needs to be set aside, as none was committed. And as for which sources support notability, I fail to see which sources currently present in the article don't, as they're all coverage about the company from reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate the cleanup on the page. If we can save something that is notable that is obviously better than simply deleting. Putting aside the fallacy of authority, this still needs to meet WP:NCORP as notability is not inherent simply for making films. If you can point out the sources you feel meet WP:ORGCRIT I will have another look and even withdraw the nomination should they support notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've undertaken a major push to clean up the advertorialism and prune back the excessive citation overkill, so the article is now in a much, much better state. Again, we're talking about a company that's made a lot — and I mean a lot a lot, like dozens — of the most notable Canadian television shows and several important films in both English and French over at least the past two decades, so basic notability isn't in doubt here, and the quality of the article writing was the only problem. And since I'm Wikipedia's resident guru of all things Canadian film and television, my judgement of the notability status of a Canadian film and television production company should carry a lot of weight, since I'm the person who actually created a lot of our articles about the company's notable film and television productions in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I applaud @Bearcat's work in cutting the article back so it's not such a litany of corporate transactions. I also did my own searches again, and found that one of the Variety articles was quite substantive and independent. On re-checking it's already in the article. Thus I think we have two SIGCOV articles, the Deadline article and the Variety article. That is enough for me to say it meets NCORP. Oblivy (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - an IP editor is playing silly beggars and undeleting most of what had been taken out. So we are back with loads of unnecessary references. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I had to bring back those sources because one of them said that Sphere launched a international film sales division and Sphere actually acquires Sienna Films back in March 2020 and not 2022. 148.252.158.62 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- You didn’t have to do this. We’ve all been around the block a long time in these parts. If you are an IP editor working on behalf of the subject of this article, you are not helping your case. JMWt (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I had to bring back those sources because one of them said that Sphere launched a international film sales division and Sphere actually acquires Sienna Films back in March 2020 and not 2022. 148.252.158.62 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can not find much to apply WP:SIGCOV (specifically, that the sources "addresses the topic directly and in detail") as well as MOS:FILMSERIES which suggests "an article would also benefit from coverage that discusses the series as a whole, or at least commentators who compare later films to their predecessors". and "A film series article should only be created when the series encompasses at least three films. An article for two films is too premature for consolidating details from both." Articles I've found that review it any form primarily focusing on the book series (examples: Michigan Daily,
On my own research to try to expand the article, it was similarly limited to usually a single sentence with no signifigant coverage. Anything about a third film is usually just reunions of the cast at unrelated events or how cast/crew are open to a third film ( example).
Scholarly articles did turn up: Girls' Sexualities in the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants Universe: Feminist Challenges and Missed Opportunities from 2011, it analyzes the series as a combination of the novels and the films as a franchise. I'd suggest expanding the novel section to incorporate the little details here, but per the above, this has failed the rules mentioned above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. The information we have on the book series is sparse, and the most notable thing about the books was that they were adapted into the films. BD2412 T 22:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants One of my favorite film series, but this is a case where the main article should be strengthened with the film series content as a 'one-stop shop' about the franchise. Nate • (chatter) 01:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Merge as above. If anyone wants, we could probably leave the history intact and redirect. Other than that, I don't really see where the separate article is really necessary, especially as future films in the series are questionable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 13:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: While I am the nominator for the Xfd, I do generally agree with all the statements above as probably the best viable solution. Clean up the clutter of the article and apply sources like the one above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Exclusion (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a film that has never actually been released, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFF criteria. It is true that Deepa Mehta announced about 15 years ago that a film about the Komagata Maru was entering development -- but it's never actually been completed or released at all, and certainly not in 2014 as this article claims (per this article, which states that the film was "still in the pipeline" as of 2019.)
But the references here are mainly primary sources and dead links, which are not support for notability — and the only nominally acceptable source is a brief glancing (and likely erroneous) namecheck of it in an overview of Mehta's entire career, not coverage about this film. And while a bit of reliable source coverage can be found about her announcement that this was going into development, there's not enough of that to suggest a reason why a never-finished film could remain permanently notable despite its failure to ever come to fruition: there's no evidence that it even entered photography at all, and the search string "Deepa Mehta exclusion" mainly just brings up references to the narrative themes of Beeba Boys and Funny Boy.
So this film was simply never completed or released at all, and thus isn't permanently notable as an unrealized project. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Deepa Mehta -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. The film was never made. It never even reached principal photography. In 2006, Deepa Mehta was doing the planning and research and not all the cast were confirmed such as Amitabh Bachchan who the maker had a wish list to cast him. 4 sources on the page, source 1 is just an entry , Source 2,3 is 404 page not found and source 4 is unreliable with just a passing mention incorrectly calling it 2014 film. No need to have a page on the film that does not even exist. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Scott Cinemas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Failing to find "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to meet WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are currently primary. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/7-things-scott-cinemas-bridgwater-2585607 ; https://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/20307914.exmouth-cinema-gets-42-000-government-funding/ and multiple other sources indicate a certain notability imv; at the very least could be redirected to list of film theater chains (currently AfDed.; same nom.) for example. I DpD the page; same nom . -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC) (nb-Needless to say I am opposed to deletion)
- 120 Bahadur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Film is scheduled to be released a year from now and just started filming. Majority of sources are announcements or press releases. CNMall41 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep my vote is for keep, kindly understand that there are many Hollywood and Bollywood movies that are upcoming in 2025 some are more than a year away yet many already have established wiki pages on them such The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more the list is endless. The information current available on the film 120 Bahadur is good enough to create a wiki page and as time progress and more info is available the wiki page will definitely grow with time. Moreover it is a film about a historically significant event. So the wiki page deserve a place with other films that are up for release in 2025. Bonadart (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your argument seems to fall under WP:OSE which is not something that can be used to support notability. Can you point out which references are specifically significant coverage that would count towards notability? The ones I see do not but will look at any you provide in case there is something I missed. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- i am in no mood to argue, my contention is if The Accountant 2, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3 which are pure fiction can have well established wiki page, then 120 Bahadur which is based on real life and a immensely historical and significant event if you may think of, also deserves a place, and if you want to talk of capturing space in that case i think this page doesnt even grab a space more than tip of safety pin out of whole wiki sphere. Bonadart (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- "I am in no mood to argue" - This is a discussion, not an argument. It does sound like maybe you should back away if you are not in the mindspace to discuss. I will reiterate that everything you stated, including in the reply above, would fall under WP:OSE.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- i am in no mood to argue, my contention is if The Accountant 2, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3 which are pure fiction can have well established wiki page, then 120 Bahadur which is based on real life and a immensely historical and significant event if you may think of, also deserves a place, and if you want to talk of capturing space in that case i think this page doesnt even grab a space more than tip of safety pin out of whole wiki sphere. Bonadart (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your argument seems to fall under WP:OSE which is not something that can be used to support notability. Can you point out which references are specifically significant coverage that would count towards notability? The ones I see do not but will look at any you provide in case there is something I missed. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Could be draftified, or redirected, but please don't delete.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you look at the history it previously was. Creator objected to the draft and moved it back to mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I see from page history that the page was moved to draft but it was moved back to mainspace but I am giving benefit of doubt that Bonadart will accept the consensus by the closer, if it ends with draftify and not move it back to mainspace till the film gets significant coverage likely after post-production. RangersRus (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you look at the history it previously was. Creator objected to the draft and moved it back to mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, China, and Ladakh. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. Sources are announcements and unveiling of the look and is in pre-production with cast and crew not confirmed yet. No significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- TOOSOON - then what will say or opine about The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more; all these films are 6 months to 1 year away yet they have established wiki pages. most of the crew of the film 120 bahadur are already on board as for cast the film is centered around Shaitan Singh Bhati who is played by Farhan Akhtar which is decided, as for others the cast hasnt been declared but may be revealed pretty soon, as for shooting it has already started as declared. So in all sense and purpose much of the info in wiki page is valid, and so deserves to be in live space. Bonadart (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- You should not bring other pages to discussion on this AFD. Draftify is because the film is too early with no significant coverage and has not made it to post-production. RangersRus (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- TOOSOON - then what will say or opine about The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more; all these films are 6 months to 1 year away yet they have established wiki pages. most of the crew of the film 120 bahadur are already on board as for cast the film is centered around Shaitan Singh Bhati who is played by Farhan Akhtar which is decided, as for others the cast hasnt been declared but may be revealed pretty soon, as for shooting it has already started as declared. So in all sense and purpose much of the info in wiki page is valid, and so deserves to be in live space. Bonadart (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Even this article is covered by the press release, like most articles that are edited by the creator of this article. There is a risk that it may be a COI (I will investigate the case and come back with details).--Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Owen× ☎ 20:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Atma Rama Ananda Ramana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
How does a college short film that is screened at its own parent company's film festival yield notability? Annapurna College of Film and Media is owned by the same people as Annapurna Studios. The only reliable source is The Hindu which talks about four other short films too, not just this film. The Telugucinema.com source is about the festival and not the film. All other sources are unreliable (not listed as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources because there are so many unreliable sources that exist and not possible to list all of them. tollywoodbuzz.com has the same reliability as Tracktollywood.com or Tollywood.net.
I genuinely feel that this article was created by [4] to have an extra link at PVR Raja. DareshMohan (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. Only two reliable sources, The Hindu and telugucinema and rest all are unreliable. The Hindu source has no significant coverage on the short film and telugucinema is about the school that created the short film. Short film is not notable. Redirect to the school page was considered but the school page is poor with only 1 source that has no notability and significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable student film; the only coverage to be found is already used in the article. These aren't sufficient to show notability; one is minimal and the other appears related to the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Brussels International Festival of Eroticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG due to not having any WP:SIGCOV. Only took placed for two years and doesn't not meet notability Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Events, Sexuality and gender, and Belgium. Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I found coverage in French: https://www.moustique.be/tendances/2019/03/19/ete-au-festival-de-erotisme-de-bruxelles-176446 ; https://www.dhnet.be/actu/sexualite/2014/03/06/on-etait-au-salon-de-lerotisme-video-YUCJW544NBCEPKHBAJJMCGKTIY/ and so on (and apparently sources exist in German and Dutch); if that is not enough, redirect to List_of_festivals_in_Europe#Belgium or to another target. Needs cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- FilmFreeway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV. Hardly meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. AmericanY (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, Canada, and United States of America. AmericanY (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources is presented on the page. So this meets the general requirements for notability. Also "Making Media:Foundations of Sound and Image Production" (2022), p. 300, for example -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: It is very old and one of the top companies worldwide of film festivals submissions. It should not be deleted. 2409:40D0:103C:C938:3985:2B19:AB0F:1E61 (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I am slightly leaning keep here - I think the IndieWire source in the article supports notability, although the other sources are blogs or press releases. Outside of the article, though, the website is discussed in International Film Festivals: Contemporary Cultures and History Beyond Venice and Cannes, in this Hollywood Reporter article, and this Screen Education article. I cannot find any mention of the site in the Making Media book discussed above, however. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 02:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Asian Cinemas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ORG; does not demonstrate sufficient notability, as it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Furthermore, the content appears to be largely promotional and fails to adhere to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: significant coverage, in The Hindu, to which one can add https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/asian-cinemas-to-open-nine-more-multiplex-screens-shortly-114041000365_1.html https://telanganatoday.com/allu-arjuns-aaa-cinemas-is-now-open-in-ameerpet-hyderabad https://thesouthfirst.com/entertainment/venkatesh-and-mahesh-babu-join-hands-for-a-new-multiplex-in-hyderabad/ https://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/new-cineplexes-come-up-in-hyderabad-suburbs/article6304545.ece etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- And "promotional", how?? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hamilton International Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a smalltown film festival, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for film festivals. As always, film festivals are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to have reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG -- but this is referenced to just one hit of purely local coverage and two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and a Google search mostly found glancing namechecks of this in coverage of films or filmmakers rather than coverage about this.
There's also an ambiguity problem here, as there's a Canadian film festival (without an article yet) that's officially just the "Hamilton Film Festival" but does sometimes get mistakenly called the "Hamilton International Film Festival" -- and a significant number of the hits in the Google search meant the Canadian one and were thus irrelevant here. I also had to unlink almost every single inbound wikilink to this article (except the disambiguatory hatnote in New Zealand's Hamilton Underground Film Festival, which is now the only inbound left), because every single actor or film that was linking here as a "notable because awards" play was referenced to a source that explicitly verified that the Canadian one was the intended topic.
Since I'm still waiting for my restored access to Newspapers.com, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to other databases of archived US media coverage than I've got (or unbroken Newspapers.com) can find more than I was able to find on Google, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: has received independent coverage. Sources include : https://www.wktv.com/news/entertainment/hamilton-international-film-festival-this-week/article_6fa70b8c-490d-11ef-b1e6-db98625d17b7.html https://www.oneidadispatch.com/2018/07/30/your-neighbor-hamilton-natives-bring-hollywood-to-madison-county-with-film-festival/ https://eu.uticaod.com/story/mid-york-weekly/2012/09/19/film-festival-gives-back-to/41647345007/ https://www.syracuse.com/news/2011/01/sons_to_honor_dads_amazing_col.html. A DISAMB page can be created to mention 3 festivals with this name exist. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- We would need to see more than just four hits of purely local coverage to establish notability here. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete A small but heartfelt festival in a small town. Of the 4 sources cited by User:Mushy Yank, #1 is very brief, I couldn't access #2, #3 & #4 are "human interest" stories about the local brothers who founded the festival, but say little about the festival itself. I did finally find a film listing for 2024, and nearly all are short films. There are two full length documentaries but only one even had an entry in IMDB, with very little info, and it had nothing in a web search (except its own web site). I found announcements for the festival in local media (e.g. Colgate college newsletter, Madison County tourism). That's all. Lamona (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Mazhanoolkkanavu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD removed with statement "Google/English language websearch is not good for Malayalam culture". If that is the case, why is it that Google Malayalam also yields nothing [5]. Changing the year parameter to today yields an unrelated music video of a similar name. Please find a review or two before keeping this. DareshMohan (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- If we can be sure this was released, with a solid source, I might support a redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2003 (or to Augustine's filmography?) because the cast is rather notable. But we have only IMDb and the other Db to prove it. Is that enough? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. Fails significant coverage WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. If anyone can find secondary independent reliable sources with significant coverage and two or more reviews from known critics, let me know and I will reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. It is impossible to just do a general search to find sources due to the way sources are archived. Best to check the Sify [6], Indiainfo [7], and Keralatalkies [8] reviews. A quick ctrl-f finds nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2003: and add another source for verification (https://www.tvguide.com/movies/mazhanoolkkanavu/2030225744/) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nightmare Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fairly new article about a non-notable TV show; created by a new editor. No sources; no formatting. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Utah. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- This was one of Utah's longest running television shows and was very popular. I will be updating sources. As for formatting I will learn and improve the page. Intergalacticlanguage (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I haven't been able to dig up much. There is Television Horror Movie Hosts 68 Vampires, Mad Scientists and Other Denizens of the Late-Night Airwaves Examined and Interviewed that covers the show, but there is no preview available. There's also a whole self-published book The Complete Index to Salt Lake City's Nightmare Theatre which would probably be decent for information, but doesn't contribute to notability. There's this dramatic piece from the Utah Education Network that says someone hanged themselves after watching the program. Other than that, it's just passing mentions like one of my favorite things to do was to curl up with my dad on a Friday night and watch the famed horror movie show starring Sammy Terry (a play on the word cemetery), “Nightmare Theater.” The low-budget series was just scary enough to capture my interest, but not so scary that DCFS needed to be alerted. I'm leaning delete, but I'm willing to wait to see what sources come up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I meant to include this note. Fischer
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, consider redirecting title to Sammy Terry If you want to write about a local TV program, you need the sourcing to back up your claim. You also need to show that it has some enduring notability to it. I do not think that the Salt Lake program has that, after doing a search that would have included Utah newspapers from the last 30 years (allowing me to avoid printed titles in TV listings). However, there is a redirect target for this title...out of Indiana, where a show titled Nightmare Theater seems to have enjoyed a 27-year run at WTTV. The SIGCOV is substantial, and we have an article related to it already. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Utah show ran from 1962-1982 continuously. Fairly enduring, twenty years. Documentation noted includes television columns noting its popularity. Intergalacticlanguage (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why wasn’t this drafted so that the creator can be helped, instead of having to defend the page at an Afd, which is pretty stressful?
Draft, please, if the creator and other users agree, speedy-draft, if such a thing exists.I don’t think that nominating a new page 20 minutes after it was created was the best approach. ’Not ready for Main space”, sure but explain it and draftify is, if the creator is a newcomer/apparently not very experienced contributor, the most constructive path imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Formatted the page roughly. The claim that it was the longest show in Utah and coverage might be enough to Keep this. If not, redirect and merge (in)to KTVX#History please. Very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Please note that the Utah TV show in this article is entirely distinct from the Indiana TV show of the same name starring Sammy Terry. The Sammy Terry character was on Indiana TV from 1962 to 1989, occasionally thereafter, continuously makes personal appearances, and still produces web content; Sammy Terry has plenty of reliable sources (print news and at least one book), far beyond what the article currently references. If this article survives, it should be moved to something like Nightmare Theater (Utah), with Nightmare Theater being a redirect to Sammy Terry or a disambiguation page. Vadder (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree that, even if enough sourcing demonstrating notability could be found, the Utah show is not the primary topic. The Indiana show has much more material to work with. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I did the initial page, and I believe Nightmare Theater (Utah) would be the proper title. This would avoid confusion with all the other Nightmare Theater and Theatres out there. While the show was broadcast on a Salt Lake City station, it was received statewide. Intergalacticlanguage (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree that, even if enough sourcing demonstrating notability could be found, the Utah show is not the primary topic. The Indiana show has much more material to work with. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've added a hatnote to distinguish the two identically named shows. Moving to a better title, if applicable, can be done once the AfD is closed. Those who !voted to redirect to Sammy Terry, please consider amending your suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist per OwenX to see if further input/existing contributors have anything to add.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)- Three shows are mentioned as notable on the KCPX (KTVX) page. Hotel Balderdash has its own page. The other two are Fireman Frank and Nightmare Theater. Intergalacticlanguage (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)