Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 08:57, 3 January 2025

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

Sammy Fabelman

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

No SIGCOV of character to justify independent article. Almost all references cover themes of the movie rather than specifically being about the character. No notable content that isn't either already included in the movie's article, or can't be included there if deemed notable enough DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage on the character may come in overtime when critical re-evaluation happens in the future. The fact the character is based on the film's own director (who happens to be one of the world's greatest filmmakers) also helps boost the significance. HM2021 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of American films of 2028

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

This seems way WP:TOOSOON to be useful for the foreseeable future to be draftified. Only one item is even titled. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON; can be re-created when we have more than two press-release-parroting sources. (And I will never understand why some editors have to be the first to create an article about a subject for which literally nothing is known yet).WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Nom has withdrawn (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Flame (film)

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

Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from Variety. Needs one more suitable and reliable review per NFO and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the Variety review, there are also reviews here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in light of the sources identified during this discussion. Thanks! -Mushy Yank. 02:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I speedy withdraw this nomination due to the recently improved updates on the page. The Film Creator (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The Master (2009 film)

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

Tagged years ago in both languages, and the cite is not enough to show notability. Hard to search for English name as is common word. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some sources, one of which is a detailed review by Turkish film critic Atilla Dorsay. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources added seem to show the film is notable enough. Thanks! A redirect to a list is warranted; opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 13:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the detailed review added to the article and identified above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper (2018 film)

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

As it is, films without 2 reviews don't get articles. This film only has 1 The Times of India review. The other News18 source pertains only to the release of the film's trailer. If deleted, move Hyper (2016 film) to Hyper (film).

Needs more production sources, to save this. DareshMohan (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table

Source	Reliable?	Significant?	Notes
News18 [1]			This is the first movie in Kannada for Ganesh, who has previously worked in Tamil cinema. It is a story that tells the importance of relationships, and the songs have been shot in many places including Jammu and Kashmir and Madikeri.
The Times of India [2]			reliable for reviews only — See WP:TOI. Note that WP:RSN considers Times of India to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable (2024 RfC). Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable
Indiaglitz [3]			Removed from the film article, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources. Nonetheless, it has crucial production information such as "The shooting for this film was held in Jammu and Kashmir, Madikeri, Bengaluru and other surroundings. The talkie portion was held in hilly region of Karnataka Madikeri. This ‘Hyper’ is not just a love story but also explain father and daughter emotional relationship".
Indiaglitz [4]
Kannada Prabha [5]			Removed from the film article. While Kannada Prabha is reliable, this is just a video source of the trailer with the text: Hyper movie trailer The trailer of Hyper movie starring Arjun Arya and Sheela has been released. The movie is directed by Ganesh Vinayak.

Redirect to List of Kannada films of 2018: but not opposed to Keep if others think it’s OK (notable cast, one review) -Mushy Yank. 13:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Kannada_films_of_2018#January–June. Not opposed to Delete per nom. RangersRus (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dokuzuncu Hariciye Koğuşu

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

Tagged 6 years ago as unsourced. The source on the Turkish article might be good and I found https://ahmetandicenmtal.meb.k12.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/06/22/256625/dosyalar/2022_12/30193320_Peyami-Safa-Dokuzuncu-Hariciye-Kogusu.pdf which is maybe the script? But 2 sources are not enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the source in the Turkish article supports WP:NF. The novel is much more notable than the film and covered in school curricula in Turkey. The film seems to be an adaptation of it with a cast consisting of top actors in Turkey. We need to check the archives to find more sources. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding another source, a thesis comparatively analyzing the film and the novel. [6] TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in light of the sources presented. A redirect and merge was absolutely warranted anyway, so, very opposed to deletion of this. (Note: AfD is not cleanup and 2 sources can sometimes be judged enough (and often are))) -Mushy Yank. 01:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was a guideline somewhere suggesting 3 sources minimum. Whenever I create a new article I always cite at least 3 sources Chidgk1 (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have the essay WP:THREE and of course, the more the merrier, but I don’t think 3 is the threshold. -Mushy Yank. 11:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified in this discussion including the one linked by the nominator and the thesis identified by The Joyful Tentmaker, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian winners and nominees of the New York Film Critics Circle

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

This page fails WP:NLIST, since none of the sources (or any others reviewed in BEFORE search) discuss Indian winners and nominees at the New York Film Critics Circle as a group. First off, there appear to be only two entries on this list, and all the sources describe their individual wins, not them as a group. Contested draftification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Awards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no sign of significance as a group per WP:NLIST. While NLIST allows for certain other types of lists regardless of notability, this does not fall into those categories. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is generally not a defining WP:NLIST characteristic and edges WP:POINT. Nate • (chatter) 23:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable awards ceremony since more than 40 years, not something random, well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ustadeditor2011 (talk • contribs)

Comment The awards aren't in question here, but this separate article for two items picked out because of a nation of origination is not a proper reason for an article. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To kind of further explain this - the main issue here isn't whether or not the awards are notable. The issue is that as a spinoff article, this needs to justify its existence. This is generally done in one of two ways:

The topic has enough coverage to justify its own article. For this, what would be needed isn't coverage of a specific person winning an award, but rather coverage that generally talks about Indians being nominated for or otherwise participating in a given awards ceremony. You can see examples of this in the Academy Awards and Golden Globe articles.
The topic is large enough to justify a spinoff article. In other words, there would need to be so many nominees that it would make sense to spin it off into its own article. The catch here is that if there are enough nominees/winners to justify this, then there would be coverage fulfilling the first situation.

Now what makes this different and a bit frustrating is that well, the NYFCC isn't nearly as high profile as the other film festivals listed on the page. It's certainly known and respected, but it tends to receive a fraction of the attention of say, the Oscars or Golden Globes. As such, outlets are less likely to write articles focusing on a specific country at the NYFCC awards. Returning to the two points I made above, the issue here is that the article contains only two entries, so it isn't a case of there being so much content that a spinoff is obvious. There also doesn't seem to be any coverage focusing on the Indian film industry in general as it applies to the NYFCC awards - and because there are only two entries, this is the criteria that would really need to be proven (unless there are others that haven't been added). If you can find coverage of this, please add it. Now, I'm not saying that this coverage doesn't exist - I haven't looked for it so I can't say that it doesn't, just that this is where people arguing for a delete are coming from with this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NLIST as described by the nominator. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sex, Love, Misery: New New York

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM, the only mentions of this film are a handful of online reviews from smaller websites. This film has generally positive reviews but isn't otherwise notable. Many editors have tried to improve the article but there isn't much to work with outside those reviews. See Talk page where this was discussed. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, COVID-19, and United States of America. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the significant coverage in reliable/[generally-accepted] sources. -Mushy Yank. 04:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC) [Edited; see below and TP][reply]
Keep This is a relatively low budget independent documentary film, but that does not mean that it is not notable. Rotten Tomatoes is considered a reliable source for review aggregation, per WP:ROTTENTOMATOES, although not every review that is aggregated is automatically presumed to be reliable. In this case, the film has seven reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, all of them generally positive though not overwhelmingly positive. Four reviews are currently used as references in the article. Those four sources, Film Carnage, Film Threat, High on Films and GhMovieFreak are already used extensively as references in many existing film articles. If it is argued and agreed that those sites are not reliable in this article, then it will be necessary to edit hundreds of film articles to remove references to those sources and the content they support. Is the nominator willing to take on that task? A complicating factor in this case is that the article was created by a highly problematic editor who has since been indefintely blocked. However, other editors in good standing have contributed to the article, and we should not delete articles about notable topics just because they were originally written by editors who have later been blocked. That can be perceived as vindictive. The article was Prodded twice but only one prod per article is allowed. I deprodded it. In conclusion, I believe that the best course of action is to keep this article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Actually, there are 5 reviews cited. -Mushy Yank. 06:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the fifth review just added as a reference is from BWRC which is also widely cited as a reliable source in film articles. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Jovanmillic97 removed one, so we are back to 4...For the record, unless we are dealing with a BLP and a potentially libelous source, I disapprove the bold removal of content when a page is being discussed, especially when it’s sourced and sources are, precisely, the main point being discussed. -Mushy Yank. 13:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 The "sources are already used extensively in many articles" or that it's a big hassle to edit them all out arguments are very, very thin and neither are based in any Wikipedia guideline or policy. Just a cursory search on the first one (Film Carnage) reveals that it's a blog by some Rebecca (film fan with no journalistic credits or anything) reviewing indie films. Is that what are we calling "reliable" nowadays? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you do not count the reviews from the three sites mentioned below, including the one you mention, 5-3=2, which is the threshold commonly accepted for the number of reviews necessary for a film, and that is based on NFILM and/or GNG. -Mushy Yank. 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be wary of reviews from Film Carnage, High on Films, and GhMovieFreak. There are a lot of film articles out there that are under the radar, while articles for mainstream films get a lot of attention. So it's always possible that these proliferated inappropriately and may be propping up other articles falsely. As it has been said, "other stuff exists". We have to remember that at the end of the day, Rotten Tomatoes is a commercial website, so it is financially interested in collating all possible reviews for any film. It's basically like IMDb's External reviews page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies as I didn't notice the first PROD.

I came across this article due to the blocked editor, but I didn't want that to be used as a reason for deletion so deliberately didn't mention it here. If the consensus is "keep" then I'm more than happy to tidy up the review section, although I'm not sure how to beef up/expand the remainder since the bulk of the article is the review section - that was one of my concerns during the TP discussion with @Axad12 on what to do next (this is where AFD came up).

I'll gladly accept & seek out any tips or recommendations on how best to proceed with that endeavour if the article stays, so every post here is really helpful in that respect! Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep: Sourcing available in the article itself meets NFILM. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Reading Beans, did you mean to say "Keep"? Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I’ll change it now. I definitely misclicked. Thank you for letting me know. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the set of reviews for this film, only one is a reliable source: Film Threat. The other reviews are not reliable sources. Being used for the Rotten Tomatoes score does not mean anything since RT is a commercial website that will collate everything possible. It's like a film having an IMDb page with a list of external reviews available. If many Wikipedia articles are citing these reviews, that's a big problem. It could be more people like the editor who made this, or editors who thought they can just use any review listed at RT, regardless of reliability. Of course, I work mainly with mainstream film articles, so if there is a WP:RS case to be made for these reviews, go ahead and make it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but what makes you say BRWC is not reliable? -Mushy Yank. 13:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at About Us, I do not see the people involved as having beyond-the-website credentials to be "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" per WP:SOURCEDEF. In the footer, it proclaims itself as "a blog about films". If it is a blog, it can only be acceptable per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Google Books here seems to show only one book that has ever referenced BRWC. I don't see anything in Google Scholar either. What is your take? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s technically a blog but not in the sense of a personal blog and they have a limited team of contibutors not just whoever wants to write there; they exist since 2008, so they might be considered OK, I guess. And the author of the review seems to have wrtitten a lot of reviews that look Okaysih in terms of quality. GhMovieFreak is a bit of the same, it’s not user-generated. If there was a list like Lists of films about the COVID-19 pandemic, I’d say redirect but there does not seem to be one. And with the Film Threat review, that’s generally reliable, i feel it would be unfair to delete this. -Mushy Yank. 23:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page seems lacking in its actual state. The Reception section, which currently is the only section with more than 2 lines of text, has partial and redundant content. Did at least one of the contributors even watch the documentary? Bit-Pasta (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do think at least one did. -Mushy Yank. 00:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Erik above. Axad12 (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will say that personally, I see BRWC as a RS as long as it's a non-paid article. However I'm aware that overall the sourcing here isn't the strongest. So what I'm suggesting here isn't that we keep this article but rather than we create an article for the director. She's put out some other films that have received reviews from places like The Hollywood Reporter, Cinema Crazed (typically seen as reliable on here), and Film Journal International. There appears to be enough sourcing to justify creating an article for her - we can have a section on her film career so it's not just a list of films and links to reviews. That could be a good compromise here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shannon Alexander. It's not the biggest or best article I've ever done on a director, but I think there's enough to justify him passing notability. This also gives a good compromise: we can redirect this article to the director's page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. The suggested redirect and possible merge can be a good compromise. Best wishes. -Mushy Yank. 04:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that the newly created article on Alexander passes GNG? It looks to me that there is a shortage of decent coverage about Alexander - just a single interview and a collection of film reviews (i.e. not actually sources about the director himself). I think it would be a good idea if somebody nominated the Shannon Alexander article to AfD to test this in practice.

It doesn't seem a very good idea to recommend a redirect when the redirect article suffers from exactly the same problem as the article which is the subject of this AfD. Axad12 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gold (2015 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable seven-minute long "experimental short documentary" film that fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. There is a lack of significant coverage in verifiable, fully independent reliable sources. The sourcing includes two listings in program guides from a film screening at two festivals; a database listing that the film exists. An online BEFORE search finds only the maker's contributions on social media, blogs, the filmmaker's own website, IMDb, and other films with the same title. This is one of a series of promotional and self-promotional articles (over the course of 8 years)[7] on the films of Alexander Tuschinski, and his family members; WP:PROMO applies. Previously deleted under a different title.[8] Netherzone (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Points raised by Netherzone are persuasive. Web search yields little substantiation for a "keep" argument. The involvement of the family members in this case seems like WP:COI. Absent new information, deletion seems appropriate. Polophylax (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alexander Tuschinski -Mushy Yank. 00:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. This is part of a disgraceful walled garden of promotional articles created by the film-maker and his publicist. Axad12 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Want to Live (2015 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

The film doesn't seem to have notability. NameGame (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iraq. NameGame (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kurdish cinema: or to the director if his page his kept. Not opposed to Keep if others find the film meets WP:NFIC as a production from Kurdistan. -Mushy Yank. 00:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets NFF with the coverage about production; filming, citation and link for review and news about the film verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrea44 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Merge per Mushy Yank. If by some chance the director's article survives, I suppose it can be redirected there. Offhand I do vaguely remember hearing about this film but I can't remember the context. In any case, I did a search in English and Kurdish (via Google Translate). There really is almost nothing out there for this film - there was even less in Kurdish than there was in English. What I could find didn't really make me think that there was more. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of note - I accidentally put this on the director's AfD page. I was going to strike it, but decided to just remove it in order to avoid confusion given the large amount of sockpuppets that are plaguing that AfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where Is Gilgamesh?

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

The film doesn't seem to have notability. NameGame (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NameGame (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seem you have selected every single article related to this film to be deleted. And can you define " notability" reason? Naderjamie6 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How much " notability" is need for a Kurdish film produced independently? Or only big budget Hollywood film are allowed to to have Wikipedia article? Can you please explain. Naderjamie6 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The film has all the qualified citation and reference needed as many other film article on Wiki. It is a Kurdish film based on Epic of Gilgamesh, released in theater with references. How can that not be notable? Wendy2024 (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Kurdish film and it is important to stay as part of Wikipedia. Citation and required link provided to verify the identity of the film. If this is deleted, then most of the other article about Kurdish films will have to be deleted also if the reason giving is "Not having notability ". Joreannorde (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The film doesn't meet the specific notability guidelines for films, and I've not been able to find any independent sources that mention the film (beyond IMBd, which doesn't establish notability.) SirCharles (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sigcov in Kurdish or English news

Noah ^💬 22:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kurdish cinema or to the director’s page, if i kept. There are some sources mentioning the film. Might meet WP:NFIC as a production from Kurdistan.-Mushy Yank. 00:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sounds like some version of the theft really happened [9] but that in no way affects notability for an unrelated film. I find no references for this. Oaktree b (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Subsequent redirection is up to editors. Sandstein 11:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvee

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

Film does not meet notability guidelines for film. It is lacking significant coverage and the claimed award in the article is from award mill type monthly festival that does not appear to be a notable award or festival itself BOVINEBOY2008 10:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Sexuality and gender, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:NFILM and WP:NFO criteria. Provided sources are not acceptable as WP:V. Unable to find proper sources for verification. QEnigma talk 12:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hindi films of 2022 -Mushy Yank. 13:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For precisely the reasons presented in the nomination. Regards. Tgvarrt (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

SpongeKnob SquareNuts

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

Don't think this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG - not enough significant coverage in reliable sources, in my opinion. I don't think Bubbleblabber, which is cited five times, is a source reliable enough to provide notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and Sexuality and gender. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator) - Buzzfeed (in 2018, WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS), The Hollywood Reporter, and Esquire are all reliable sources that establish notability. I also don't see any reason to doubt the reliability of the HTF and Inside Hook sources, which are both interviews in print magazines. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a classic Buzzfeed listicle article would be WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, that would be WP:BUZZFEED. Is everything mentioned in a buzzfeed clickbait list notable? The article fails GNG as it doesn't address the topic in detail. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a "clickbait list" it serves as an opinion piece that provides reception and points towards notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the director's article. The refs only talk about the movie in passing while speaking of the director. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the BuzzFeed list article is not significant or from a reliable source, the Hollywood Reporter article is very just a few sentences long and not "in detail" per SIGCOV, and the Esquire article is more about the director and only mentions the parody three times in passing, and thus not "in detail" either. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: The HTF and InsideHook articles are also like the Esquire article in that they are simply interviews with the director and only tangentially mention the video. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Di. Juwan (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the BuzzFeed nor the Hollywood Reporter articles don’t make a compelling notability case. E_F⁵ 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Di briefly mentioned this discussion on the Wikimedia Discord server. They quickly deleted their message upon being asked to do so. Toadspike [Talk] 14:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all participants thus far except Darth Stabro (but including the nominator and myself) are active on that server. Toadspike [Talk] 14:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted before they accidently mentioned it. And it hasn't done any damage, the !votes disagree with each other. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I am on the server, I was not online when the message was sent. E_F⁵ 15:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, it was not my intent to bring attention to the discussion or to canvas. I offhandedly mentioned it to express that I was annoyed at a page in queue for DYK being AFD'd, and when I realized that it could be interpreted badly I deleted the message. Again, I apologize. I will be more careful in the future. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It being in a queue for DYK is why it was nominated; see this comment on WT:DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards delete, as I expressed at DYK – The Hollywood Reporter doesn't go into much depth, Hit the Floor and Esquire are mainly interviews, and BuzzFeed definitely doesn't count on this one. I might be convinced that The Hollywood Reporter, InsideHook, and Bubbleblabber make a very weak GNG pass, but the last two just aren't very weighty sources and if this is the best the article can be from those sources, then yeah, I'm not sure I see it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: given the coverage identified; also see https://mommyish.com/porn-parody/ https://www.cineserie.com/news/cinema/top-des-parodies-x-les-plus-droles-du-cinema-4163152/ etc. A ’decent’ article is possible so that redirect is not necessary and I am opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 00:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned briefly in the The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies and in the Bibliography of Sex and Sexuality in Modern Screen Remakes mentioning an article in Hornet in 2013.-Mushy Yank. 00:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is a blog and the second is just a listicle like Buzzfeed that doesn't have any detail. I don't think those really count, for the same reasons the other sources don't. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those ”listicles” include significant coverage and are no trivial mentions, so, yes, they really "count" imv. -Mushy Yank. 02:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" is defined as "directly and in detail", which a few passing sentences in a listicle isn't. It's direct, I suppose, but in The CineSerie list, half of the mention is just talking about the concept of parodying cartoons in this format; you don't actually learn anything about the video itself other than that it exists. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. You don’t learn everything about the video but you learn something, and not mereley that it exists, no, sorry but that is simply not true; you learn that it is a live-acton film, that it is bizarre, that it has weird sex scenes and some sequences are deemed ridiculous, you learn that it was meant to traumatize the child in you...., which the commentaror backs up with a quote. So, not trivial, significant, and the same goes for the other sources. -Mushy Yank. 02:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deeply unimpressed by source quality and coverage. The Hollywood Reporter is the best coverage, and it's still just a brief blurb

. Bubbleblabber is clearly not RS

. Hit the Floor is a low-quality group blog with a single sentence fragment of coverage outside the interview

. Inside Hook, if it's even RS, is still a trivial one-sentence mention

. Esquire coverage is exclusively in an interview

. Instagram is worthless

. BuzzFeed is a non-RS listicle

. Mommyish is blatantly not RS, why even link it

. Cineserie is also not RS (byline is just "Hatman")—at best it's tabloid junk "edited" by people whose professional journalism credentials are unverifiable—and anyway is just barely three sentences in a listicle, very far from SIGCOV

. JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed not RS, how? Bubbleblabber, not reliable, ”clearly”, why? For the rest, the sources you indicate as just a blurb, just a listicle, and so on address the subject in what are not trivial mentions, some being of lesser quality than other. As to ’why even list it”, read my comment and WP:OR and you’ll know. -Mushy Yank. 04:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 04:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- By which Mushy Yank means they have added references to sugarcookie.xxx (!), cartoonbrew.com, and the Daily Beast. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, Mushy Yank also says that you’re most welcome! -Mushy Yank. 12:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  For the record, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#Cartoon Brew and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#Is The Daily Beast a reliable source -Mushy Yank. 12:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facing the Enemy

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of erotic thriller films#2001: listed there; notable cast, verifiable, but the director has no page. A standard alternative to deletion is such cases when coverage seems insufficient for a standalone page. -Mushy Yank. 21:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But more citation is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BonitueBera (talk • contribs) 00:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a regular Google search as well as a search using Newspapers.com. I couldn't find anything other than database listings, junk hits, and other things that Wikipedia wouldn't see as usable for the purposes of passing NFILM. I normally don't mind a redirect since they're cheap, however I do have to disagree with a redirect in this situation. Erotic thrillers are exceptionally common in the filmmaking world. They're so common that if we were to contain them all on a list page, it would quickly become unwieldy. The presence of notable actors in an erotic thriller isn't really that uncommon either, as some of these deliberately choose notable people in hopes of drawing in viewers. These were and continue to be pretty exceptionally common films, but especially in the 90s and 2000s. I think we got a good 5-10 each week back when I was working at Blockbuster - and those weren't all of them either.

If we had sourcing to establish this one as particularly noteworthy (but still failing NFILM) then that might be something, but the only places that really mention this are books like VideoHound. That book is awesome, but is essentially a database in book form. They give the films ratings, but without any of the depth we'd need for it to be seen as a review. Basically, there's nothing to distinguish this to where it'd be worth including it on a list page because then we'd have to pretty much include anything that was an erotic thriller and potentially start running into WP:NOTDATABASE territory. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayer's unrealized projects

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

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

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

Offtopic fightpicking.
"In my opinion"... Wikipedia is not about opinions, son. Quit while you're ahead, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. "Power trip", good description to whomever said it. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to David Ayer – it makes more sense to discuss these projects in the context of his larger career (or to omit certain projects if their coverage is too trivial, but that can happen after a merge). Regardless of notability, at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic (WP:PAGEDECIDE). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Few editors are willing to take responsibility of it. No issue in keeping the article for some more time unless there are no significant improvements. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that "Perfectly standard" or "No issue in keeping the article" are not guideline-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not (although common sense should incite us to believe that a perfectly standard page is very likely an acceptable page as standalone list/article.) But SPLITLIST is a guideline, and a solid reason for keeping list-formatted pages. -Mushy Yank. 13:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge back to David Ayer and maybe thin this out. Right now this comes across as the films he didn't make are the most important part of his work. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

Templates

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {{ombox|type=notice|text=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.}}
 {{topic|Film|project=Movies}}
-{{shortcut|WP:FILMDEL}}
+{{shortcut|WP:DSFILM|WP:DSFILMS|WP:FILMDEL}}
 {{deletionlist|Film}}
-;Related deletion sorting: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers|Actors and filmmakers]]; [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga|Anime and manga]]; [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation|Comics and animation]]; [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters|Fictional characters]]; [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television|Television]]
-</noinclude>
 {{PetScan |cat2= Film |cat2depth=7 |cat= Articles for deletion |linktext= Scan for Film  AfDs|type=open}}
-'''{{PetScan |cat2= Film |cat2depth=7 |cat= All articles proposed for deletion |linktext= Scan for Film Prods|type=plain}}'''<br/>
+{{PetScan |cat2= Film |cat2depth=7 |cat= All articles proposed for deletion |linktext= Scan for Film Prods|type=plain}}
-'''{{PetScan |cat2= Film  templates |cat2depth=2 |cat= Wikipedia templates for deletion |linktext= Scan for Film  template TfDs|type=plain}}'''
+{{PetScan |cat2= Film  templates |cat2depth=2 |cat= Wikipedia templates for deletion |linktext= Scan for Film  template TfDs|type=plain}}
 |}
+;Related deletion sorting:
+* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers|Actors and filmmakers]]
+* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga|Anime and manga]]
+* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation|Comics and animation]]
+* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements|Fictional elements]]
+* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television|Television]]
+</noinclude>
 ==Film==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthi_Venkatesh}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sammy Fabelman}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cochin_Masthaara}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_American_films_of_2028}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hidden_Empire_Film_Group}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Flame (film)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Siliconn_City}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Master (2009 film)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Cult_of_Sincerity}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hyper_(2018_film)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Golden_Age_of_Nigerian_cinema}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dokuzuncu Hariciye Koğuşu}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian winners and nominees of the New York Film Critics Circle}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Undateable_John}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jack_and_Cocaine}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex, Love, Misery: New New York}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhu Bhutum}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold (2015 film) (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Want to Live (2015 film) (2nd nomination)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suresh_-_Hindi_films_actor}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Asch}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where Is Gilgamesh?}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pakalurakkam}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manvee}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ardhanareeswaran}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpongeKnob SquareNuts}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dharti_Kahe_Pukar_Ke}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facing the Enemy}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Great_Escape_(2017_film)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Ayer's_unrealized_projects}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/One_Day_(2005_film)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zoom_(2016_Malayalam_film)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Association_of_Canadian_Film_Craftspeople}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/USS_Utah_(SSBN-745)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakalurakkam}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ghost_Lake_(film)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Altieri}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wire_Walker_Studios}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Main_Punjab_Nahin_Jaoongi}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Three_Bogatyrs_on_Distant_Shores}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Cinderella_Christmas_(2017_movie)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tu Maza Jeev}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Wheeler_(audio/video_technologist)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anubis_(film)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mami (2012 film) (2nd nomination)}}
 {{clear}}
+==[[WP:PROD|Proposed deletions]]==
+*{{prodded|Medha Sharma|03-11-2024}}
+*{{prodded|Trick mode|07-11-2024}}
 ==[[WP:CFD|Categories]]==
-*[[:Category:Twins in Indian films]]
-*[[:Category:Asians in film and theatre]], to delete, see [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 14#Category:Asians in film and theatre|CFD 2012 June 14]].
-*[[:Category:Film by culture]], [[:Category:American film by ethnicity]], [[:Category:African American film]], [[:Category:Asian American film]], [[:Category:Mexican American film]], [[:Category:Native American film]], [[:Category:Jewish film]], [[:Category:Indigenous film]], [[:Category:Indigenous film by region]], [[:Category:Indigenous film by language]], [[:Category:Aboriginal film in Canada]], [[:Category:Indigenous film in Latin America]], [[:Category:Palestinian film]], mostly to change "film" to "cinema", see  [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 14#Category:Film by culture|CFD 2012 June 14]].
-*[[:Category:Jewish film and theatre]], to delete and restructure sub-categories, see [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 17#Category:Jewish film and theatre (no. 2)|CFD 2012 June 17]] (relisted for a fresh discussion).
-*{{cl|Films by studio}} and {{cl|films by producer}}, reorganise into one for companies and one for people. See [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 19#Films by studio and films by producer|CFD 2012 June 19]].
 == [[WP:TFD|Templates]] ==
-{{tfdl2|Animation studios|2013 April 11|||}}
 [[Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting|Film]]