Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

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

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting: Actors and filmmakers; Anime and manga; Comics and animation; Fictional elements; Television

Scan for Film AfDs

'Scan for Film Prods'

'Scan for Film template TfDs'

Film

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu mythological and devotional cinema

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

WP:POVFUNNEL: That era also had films from other religions, as well as folklores. WP:CONTENTFORK as it can be incorporated in Cinema of India, also forks the genre Mythological film / Fantasy film. Hardly satisfies WP:GNG. Fight Island (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Religion, and India. Fight Island (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge As there seems to be a book about the subject, it seems likely that this can support a stand-alone article. I don't see the WP:POVFUNNEL argument, as the article does not claim that it is about an era of film, but rather a significant topical sub-section of the era before 1923 and beyond. In its current form we only have stub, though, so I have no problem if the majority prefers to merge the current content to a suitable broader topic and only split it out again in case someone adds enough content. Daranios (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daranios, there's no "book about the subject", there's mention in pages 303–305. Currently, parent article Cinema of India does not have a section dedicated to it or mention of it in History section. Standalone sub-topic article is odd.--2409:4073:118:6B79:20EB:9C1C:FC4C:251F (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cited review of Deities & Devotees suggests that that book is at least to a large part about the subject. Or did I get that wrong? The same review also calls out Filming the Gods by Rachel Dwyer and the Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema as further sources on the topic. Daranios (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I agree that if this is kept there should be a corresponding sub-section added to Cinema of India, presumably at "Genres and styles". But the fact that there is not such section yet should not be a reason to delete this article. Daranios (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: And perhaps rename to either Hindu mythological cinema or Puranic cinema, as many non-secular religious zealots treat these films as fact-based. Also because devotional films are largely different, e.g.: Palayathu Amman is not a mythological as it is set in present day, but devotion to a god plays a prominent role in the story. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I vote to delete. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: We don't normally create separate articles for subgenres, such as Arabian mythological film, Norse mythological film, Slavic mythological film, African mythological film, Celtic mythological film, Persian mythological film etc. It's all mythology. Even mythological film don't have a separate article. But we have Norse mythology in popular culture, may be Hindu mythology in popular culture is a broader and better option. Fight Island (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fight Island: I think there are two differences between our article and your examples. On the one hand I imagine that there are more Hindu mythological films than for the other mythologies. On the other, the one cinema is rooted in a major living religion, which is not the case for the others. Whatever we as authors may think of these mythologies, in the one case scholars of religion can and have analyzed the reactions of the believers to the films, in the other cases not (so much). A closer comparison would be between Hindu devotional cinema and Christian cinema, which does have an article, more or less. More importantly, I think we don't normally make a program beforehand what subarticles we create or don't create. Rather, it depends if there are secondary sources, especially scholarly ones, which can support an encyclopedic article or not. That's what WP:GNG is all about, and that should be the critereon here, too - while still respecting WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NPOV, of course. If we have enough secondary material, let's have a Hindu mythological cinema article. If we have enough for a Norse mythological film, let's have that one, too. One does not depend on the existence of the other, that would be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS kind of argument. Daranios (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content forking is content forking. As already told, even mythological film has no separate article. GNG is not a guarantee for inclusion, not to mention it hardly satisfies here, as GNG requires "significant coverage" in "independent sources" specifically discussing "Hindu mythological film" as an independent genre as the book claims (not the broader Indian mythological film). I see only two sources on the article and can't find any on the web. Contrary to what you accused, other stuff does not exists here.--Fight Island (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fight Island: "Content forking is content forking." Sure, so why are we leading a deletion discussion here, not a merge discussion? You are arguing mostly based on the current state of the article. That, however, is not the decisive factor according to the notability guideline. The question is are there enough secondary sources so that we could write a reasonable encyclopedia article on our specific topic here, or only enough to support a paragraph in a larger article. This should have been determined by a WP:BEFORE search preceding a nomination for deletion. So did you check out the three books I've mentioned, and how substantial the content of the three pages from Explorations in New Cinema History actually is?

As for "other stuff does not exists here", that essay says we should avoid the argument "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this.", which seems to be pretty much what you are saying with reference to mythological films in general. The existence of this article in no way hinders the creation of such a parent article. Daranios (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: due to WP:POVFUNNEL. This is a subtopic best covered in a larger article as suggested by the nominator. Venkat TL (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Hinduism. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is WP:POVFUNNEL, and lacks sources desperately. It can be merged with Cinema of India, but carefully since Indian cinema was nowhere and never divided per ethnicity, there is no theory of cinema that makes such distinction in any significant manner. Redirect could be left, but I would prefer not as it could potentially feed into more ethno-nationalism.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Santasa99, thank you for saying that. Although I have already !voted, so I am making this additional note that I do not suggest keeping the redirect due to above reason. I stand with my delete opinion. Venkat TL (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have added content about both genres (Hindu mythological and devotional) to List of genres, this article may be deleted. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792 This is not the right way to !Vote. see Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Recommendations_and_outcomes. You did not strike out your previous Keep !vote comment or any other comment. And why are you indenting as if you are responding to my comment? Venkat TL (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to strike it out, but I thought one cannot edit their own comments. Now I'll do it. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792 ok. I still did not understand why you decided to indent your comment as a reply to @Santasa99 and my comment. It is unrelated. Please strike it and make a fresh comment below with one bullet point as indentation. The present comment is confusing as it is not related to the 2 comments before yours. Venkat TL (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Hopefully, some of the sources mentioned in this discussion can find their way into this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aizō Tōge

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

Lost film, stub article contains no more than Film infobox and one source. Robert Kerber (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No source on when it was released. Sarrail (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's important, these two sources give the release date [1] [2]. The first is from the distributor, Nikkatsu, and the second is from a film database run by the government's Agency for Cultural Affairs. Dekimasuよ! 01:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the major sources (Kinenote, production company website, Japan Cinema Database, film literature) is able to give a synopsis or reviews of Aizō Tōge. All they state is that the film once existed, and when it was intially released. The Nikkatsu page even states: "Due to the lack of materials for pre-war works (before 1942), the content of the data on this website is not necessarily accurate." At present Aizō Tōge does not meet WP:NFILM.--Robert Kerber (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a keep; there are sources available in Japanese on the production of the film and its position in the work of Kenji Mizoguchi, who is still considered one of the most important directors in Japanese film. It was Mizoguchi's last film with Nikkatsu, which is a dividing line between his early career and his more mature and independent work. I am not sure I will be able to put sources together during this AfD, but here are a few prospects: around page 60–70 of 「紫陽花や山田五十鈴という女優」by Kinen Matsumoto (2003) on cinematography, p. 284 of「日本映画作家論」by Akira Iwasaki (1958) on Mizoguchi and Nikkatsu, 「溝口健二・全作品解說: 「愛憎峠」・「折鶴お千」」(Explanation and Analysis of All of Mizoguchi Kenji's Works (Vol. 12): Aizō Tōge and The Downfall of Osen, Tsutomu Saso, 2016). The last one in particular is clearly in-depth coverage based upon magazine and newspaper reports from the time of release. Dekimasuよ! 01:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be about 100 pages of coverage on this film in the last source. Dekimasuよ! 03:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dekimasu The topic here is Aizō Tōge, not Orizuru Osen, of which, contrary to the former, a print and re-release reviews exist. None of the sources you cite seems to be able to give a synopsis or reviews of Aizō Tōge from the time of its initial run. The Nikkatsu page even states: "Due to the lack of materials for pre-war works (before 1942), the content of the data on this website is not necessarily accurate." No-one questions Mizoguchi's importance, I in the least who has worked on various WP entries on his films, but at present Aizō Tōge does not meet WP:NFILM, and your presumption that it is a "guiding line" is WP:OR as long as you can't cite a source for this. See a similar case here with a lost film by Naruse. Best, Robert Kerber (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this was unclear, the book is called "Aizō Tōge and Orizuru Osen" and there are 100 pages specifically on Aizō Tōge along with 300 pages on Orizuru Osen. The 100 pages on Aizō Tōge include information on its plot and reviews from its initial run. On the dividing line, note that we have cited a quote in our Osaka Elegy article stating that "Mizoguchi himself named Osaka Elegy and Sisters of the Gion as the works with which he achieved artistic maturity." Osaka Elegy came out after Orizuru Osen, and Aizō Tōge was the only film he produced for Nikkatsu after returning from being attacked. This may not be sufficient for adding to the article now, so I haven't done so, but it is relevant information for the AfD. As I said above, I am not sure I can do what's sufficient during the AfD, but it's unfortunate because sources certainly do exist, and the Tsutomu Sasō book is likely the best option in order to find a comprehensive selection of them. I probably can't get my hands on it within the week. (The Nikkatsu site is not really necessary; there is ample documentary evidence of when the film was released.) Dekimasuよ! 23:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Along with Dekimasu's last source, a search through National Diet Library reveals additional possible offline sources that would make this film meet WP:GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 04:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if anyone has access in particular to #4 and/or #10 there, those look to be very good sources for the article. Dekimasuよ! 04:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on substantial book coverage identified in this discussion. Weak keep as not able to check sources so assuming WP:AGF Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas Mateer

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

Refbombed article with patchy sourcing (at best), profiling YouTuber and stood up on mostly non-RS references, created by SPA. Take out social, passing mentions, usage of his Sandy coverage by MSM and links to his own platform and you fail WP:GNG with brio. NOTE now at John Mateer (filmmaker) Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Film. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{hidden | headerstyle = background: #ccccff; font-size: 110%; | header = Really long rationale by the article creator | content =:Okay. If you have to say “take out this, this & this and it would be subject to deletion” … isn’t that you blatantly stating that it is not subject to deletion? Category for “YouTuber” was removed. The subject of the article is listed as a filmmaker. He has been featured in films as well as worked as the cinematographer on others. I referenced his film production company that he started to further explain.

I would’ve appreciated the ability to clean up the over-sourcing. Your initial statement points to a premature nomination for deletion.

Shortcuts

I went on to read WP:SPA and totally get what you are saying. I didn’t think about that and I will broaden my focus immediately. I didn’t realize how that could come across. Apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4theloveofallthings (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the SPA comment, I give you that. It was just how I wanted to go about my first article. I was going to make it, have it reviewed, learn more about the process and then go on to create more. I apologize if this seem like a SPA, but I had only begun editing the page on the 29th of September. I have a list of other topics I want to write about. I specifically write about the New York film scene because I live in New York myself and am aware of these people. John Mateer stood out for his bizarre story. There’s still so much more to include. I apologize for the heavy defense. I just have been working so hard on it, it took me by suripise. I requested a peer edit and now it’s getting trashed. I would’ve loved feedback. This is just disheartening.

I’ll give it my best though:

WP:BASIC & WP:NBASIC state the following: “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.”

This is a list I could compile for you now to show you that the subject indeed meets the criteria, and that this nomination should be revoked in favor for an editing suggestion.

"The Fordham Ram" (USA), 18 January 2021, by: Jaclyn Weiner, "Updating Gay Hate Crime Legislation"

"MediaUpdate.co.za" (South Africa), 14 November 2012, "Superstorm New York: What Really Happened"

"PRNewswire" (USA), 12 November 2012, "National Geographic Channel To Air First In-Depth Cable Documentary On Wrath And Destruction Of Hurricane Sandy In Superstorm 2012"

"Philly Voice" (USA), 15 November 2019, by: Daniel Craig, "Man says he was beaten by PSU fraternity member because he's gay"

"Opposing Views" (USA), 8 March 2018, by: Amanda Andrade-Rhoades, "'Don't Let A Frat Guy Know That You're Gay': Teen Allegedly Beaten Up At Penn State"

"Onward State" (USA), 15 October 2015, by: Megan Fleming, "Penn State Altoona Student Charged Following Alleged Homophobic Assault"

"StateCollege.com" (USA), 15 October 2015, by: Zach Berger, "Penn State Student Charged in Alleged Anti-Gay Assault"

"The Underground" (USA), 12 October 2015, by: Adam Tidball, "Mateer's Assault and Homophobia at Penn State"

"Seventeen" (USA), 8 October 2015, by: Elizabeth Denton, "Gay Teen Brutally Attacked Outside a Penn State Frat House"

"Total Frat Move" (USA), 8 October 2015, by: Harrison Lee, "Viral Tweet Accuses PSU Fraternity Member Of Beating Guy Up For Being Gay, Police Find Suspect Isn't Actually In Fraternity"

"Logo TV" (USA), 7 October 2015, by: Matthew Tharrett, "GAY TEEN VICIOUSLY BEATEN AT PENN STATE AFTER REVEALING HE IS GAY"

"Teen Vogue" (USA), 7 October 2015, by: Emma Sarran Webster, "This Teen Was Beaten Outside a Penn State Frat House After Revealing That He's Gay"

"Gay Star News" (USA), 7 October 2015, "Gay college student visiting Penn State comes out outside fraternity house, gets beaten"

"COED" (USA), 7 October 2015, by: Alexa Lyons, "Teen Claims PSU Student Assaulted Him For Being Gay"

"Metro" (USA), 6 October 2015, by: Matthew Lee, "Man claims he was gay bashed by Penn State frat guy"

"NY Daily News" (USA), 6 October 2015, by: Melissa Chan, "Long Island teen claims Penn State fraternity member beat him for being gay: 'Don't let a frat guy know that you're gay'"

"Edge" (USA), 6 October 2015, "NY Teen Says Penn State Frat Member Beat Him Over Sexuality"

"Towleroad" (USA), 6 October 2015, by: Ande Towle, "Police Investigating Alleged Anti-Gay Assault of Man at Penn State University"

"Pink News" (UK), 6 October 2015, by: JOSEPH MCCORMICK, "Police investigate alleged assault on college teen by 'frat member'"

"Fox 5 New York" (USA), 5 October 2015, "Police investigate possible anti-gay beating"

"The Tab" (USA), 5 October 2015, "Gay man allegedly beaten in North Burrowes assault"

"Inside Edition" (USA), 4 October 2015, by: IE Staff, "Police Investigate After Teen Says He Was Assaulted at Penn State University For Being Gay"

"Channel Guide Magazine" (USA), 16 June 2013, by: Barb Oates, "Long Island Medium Season 4 recap of "Bouffants and Bingo""

"CBS 6" (USA), 2 November 2012, by: Sandi Cauley, "Trees fall in NY neighborhood as Sandy comes ashore"

"Forbes" (USA), 2 November 2012, by: Kashmir Hill, "Sandy Through The Eyes of YouTube and a Drone: Falling Trees, Fires and Flooding"

"CNET" (USA), 31 October 2012, by: Chris Matyszczyk, "Sandy video: Falling trees. Fire. 'Apocalypse'"

"Aristegui Noticias" (Mexico), 31 October 2012, "'Frankenstorm' se llevó hasta los árboles en EU"

"Pirman" (Spain), 31 October 2012, "Esto es el 'Apocalipsis'. Sandy videos: Caída de árboles. Fuego. Olas gigantes."

"Klix" (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 30 October 2012, "Pogledajte s kakvom lakocom uragan Sandy cupa drvece"

"BostInno" (USA), 30 October 2012, by: Sam Dwyer, "'Hurricane Sandy 3 Trees Fall and Fire' Becomes Next Double Rainbow Guy"

"Mashable" (USA), 30 October 2012, by: Stephanie Haberman, "'This Is the Apocalypse' Video Shows Sandy Destruction"

4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: You are linking to search results for “John Thomas Mateer”.. as clear in his page on IMDb, most of — if not ALL of his last titles are credited “John Mateer.”

It has his included his middle name in his IMDb, and the page John Mateer was already taken, so I went with middle name included. If you are looking for sources while searching for “John Thomas Mateer,” you are unlikely to find the same amount of information as you would if you typed in “John Mateer” followed by whatever you want to know.

Just wanted to share this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4theloveofallthings (talk • contribs) 14:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- See WP:NCPDAB. A better way to disambiguate him would be to have called the article John Mateer (podcaster) or something like that, as I assume that it is more likely that people will recognize him by his occupation than by his middle name. If this article winds up being kept, perhaps it should be moved there instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/21845/1/Fuchs_Tanja.pdf (Pages 166-168) scholarly source titled “Violence against Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals - Social Media Activism in the Obama Era in the Light of Johan Galtung’s Violence Triangle”

https://www.google.com/search?q=john+mateer+penn+state+assault&client=safari&hl=en-us&sxsrf=ALiCzsb5iOjeSjEOZeNzO2qtLQgyNE8AJQ%3A1664980819402&ei=U5c9Y-32F8mhptQP0L2zsAc&oq=john+mateer+penn+state+assault&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwuAED-AEBMgUQIRigAcICCBAAGKIEGLADwgIEECMYJ8ICBRAhGKsCkAYESJohUPwFWI4fcAB4AMgBAJABAJgBlAGgAewQqgEFMTAuMTHiAwQgQRgBiAYB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp&safari_group=9#ip=1

Try that instead for the Penn State situation. That looks heavily sourced to me.

Included sources to articles by Teen Vogue, Philly Voice, NY Daily News, Inside Edition and others speaking about Mateer's viral assault.

https://www.seventeen.com/life/school/news/a34610/this-is-horrible-gay-teen-brutally-assaulted-outside-a-penn-state-frat-house/

https://www.insideedition.com/12240-police-investigate-after-teen-says-he-was-assaulted-at-penn-state-university-for-being-gay

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/gay-teen-assaulted-outside-frat-penn-state

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teen-claims-penn-state-frat-guy-attacked-gay-article-1.2386871

For the Hurricane Sandy Viral Video. The documentary I included in a source not only opens by calling MATEER’S video “world famous,” but he stars start to finish in the entire thing.

I included sources for the Hurricane Sandy event to televised interviews of Mateer with Katie Couric over the matter, I put a source from FORBES talking about MATEER’S footage.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22john+mateer%22+hurricane+sandy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari&safari_group=9

Try this instead.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/11/02/sandy-through-the-eyes-of-youtube-and-a-drone-falling-trees-fires-and-flooding/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVQPqUbjkJo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWnBX_x2Md4 (this is the Weather Channels official YouTube channel)

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/police-investigate-possible-anti-gay-beating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4theloveofallthings (talk • contribs) 14:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused because with the exception of the scholarly source, which I will add, all of these were cited.

Forbes. Fox News. ABC. The Weather Channel. Teen Vogue. NY Daily News.

If these aren’t strong enough of sources, I am left very confused what the standard for a source is.

Perhaps tagging the article with a warning to clean up the sources and edit it better would’ve been suffice? I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that this article should be deleted. At the most, I’d say change the title to “John Mateer (filmmaker).” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4theloveofallthings (talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and now you've screwed up the entire AfD page. Sign your comments and don't go hacking at the main page please. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are mostly unreliable and non-independent. Delete per WP:BIO1E. Haueirlan (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not land within the criteria of WP:BIO1E - as per the article where two events are heavily sourced with reliable and independent sources. Rough as the article may be, as per WP:INTROTODELETE, the article shouldn’t be nominated at all for deletion based on the need for cleanup. Subject meets all of the criteria for WP:GNG as well, which negates the listed nomination reason - even though the nominator stated in his nomination that the article almost doesn’t meet the WP:GNG criteria.. which means that it does and this whole nomination for deletion is a waste of time that could have been spent giving suggestions on cleaning up the article instead.. . and considering the standards set forth in WP:NOBITING, I feel like this was just an unnecessary and unwarranted insult on a newcomer rather than a genuine attempt at encouraging those new within the Wikipedia community to grow as editors.
I have given my reasoning. My reasoning is backed by standards put in place by Wikipedia.
- Keep
4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - fixed spotty sources, removed information that lacked backing, and still what is left has sufficient citations that reference some of the strongest names in journalism (Forbes, ABC, The Inquirer, etc.) — I also included a PhD Dissertation in which the Penn State assault was analyzed.

I apologize for my mistake with the AfD page. I’m still learning. I was struggling to figure out how to sign and the bot was signing it for me. I figured that was okay.

4theloveofallthings (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ - The nominator that put the article John Thomas Mateer up for deletion stated that if the article were missing certain things, that it would not meet WP:GNG, which initially sets strikingly clear understanding to how carefree this user is with posting AfD tags on new articles rather than attempting to provide constructive criticism. WP:NOBITING. But I thought I’d provide a list of all requirements set forth by WP:GNG that the nominator claims was almost not met by the article John Thomas Mateer — thus justifying tagging it for deletion discussion somehow.
1. "Presumed" - the first guideline states that if there is significant coverage in reliable sources to the point it can be presumed NOT guaranteed that the subject warrants its own article — then it meets criteria #1 - Article References are not only sufficiently reliable (including articles dedicated entirely to the subject by the likes of Teen Vogue, Seventeen Magazine, PhillyVoice, The Weather Channel & CNN.. but valuable pieces of information can be found on the subject in other reliable sources included — from the likes of Forbes, ABC, National Geographic & BBC. Sources are varied. Some are news articles, magazine articles, direct video of the television broadcasts & documentaries Mateer was on, some info published by the subject himself.. but I have also included a German PhD student’s dissertation into the mix as the subject was written about over the span of three pages.
"Significant coverage" - Try googling: “John Mateer” instead of “John Thomas Mateer” for sources. There is a very large amount of varying reliable and independent sources covering the subject. Without all original research, the reliable sources left .. are MORE than enough to source this article.
“Reliable”- Forbes, National Geographic, ABC, The Weather Channel, TLC, Teen Vogue & Seventeen Magazine..
“Sources” - Article References are varied in both type and depth.
“Independent of the Subject” - the sources are indeed independent of the subject - it is clear to know this by a handful of mega-corporation names being the publication of these articles. Based on nomination explanation, the article John Thomas Mateer met the criteria in WP:GNG but had certain elements been removed, then it would not have met these standards. I took it upon myself to see passed this and take the critical comment as a learning experience. I cleaned up the oversourcing, added some more reliable sources while removing any content and sources that I would not need.

4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This advice is coming a bit late but you should really take advantage of Draft space and User Space like your Sandbox to create and develop articles, it's a "safer space" where editors are allowed to gradually improve articles over time. By placing articles that are unready directly into the main space of the project, they are subject to be tagged for Speedy Deletion or to be nominated for an AFD discussion. I understand that many new editors are eager to get their first work in the encyclopedia right away but it's not a friendly place to learn how to edit and articles are scrutinized and evaluated much more thoroughly than if they were in Draft space and submitted to AFC. Just something to consider for you next article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can request that instead of being deleted (if that is where the discussion is heading), that your article be "Draftified" instead and moved into Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz I can't close this 'cos there's been a delete vote, but if you want to close as draftify I have no objection as nominator... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will genuinely respect whatever you think is the right thing to do. I don’t understand how draftifying it is different from deleting it and just starting a draft of the article (genuinely have no clue) but if that’s the call you are making then I’m going to accept that.

I do agree I should have drafted the article first, but not it’s at the point that.. let’s say I remove the Filmography and leave the main parts of the article that are absolutely verified through reliable sources.. essentially getting rid of the stuff that needs to be sourced better and leave up what is meeting the standards set by Wikipedia… could I just replace the {{stub}} tag and render the article a stub again that is in need of further elaboration? Is this possible? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replace meaning put the {{stub}} tag back into the the source code of the article. There was once a stub tag and I removed it once the article got longer. I could revert the article to the state it was in when it was a stub and put the tag back. Sorry, I worded that poorly. Just wanted to clarify. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And while the article getting nominated for deletion wasn’t what I wanted, of course, I actually did just learn a lot through having it happen. I now understand the deletion process better, the importance of utilizing my sandbox and not jumping straight into live articles and of course how not to completely wreck an AfD page (truly sorry about that one). 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will of course leave off with the fact that WP:INTROTODELETE specifically states that articles in bad shape are not subject to the deletion process. So, while I do understand it needed to be developed further in drafting, this whole AfD process happening at all was unnecessary by Wikipedia’s own standards. Subject meets WP:GNG, the need for cleanup of an article does not warrant a nomination for deletion. By these standards set directly by Wikipedia, I am supporting the eventual Keep decision.. whenever that decision will get made and by whomever makes that decision. I hope they see that this deletion proposal directly contradicts the standards put in place by WP.

Thank you. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please draftify. I guess if it comes down to this article is going to be lost or sent to draft.. I’d prefer the latter. Just sad. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! See this is advice that I actually will take. Yeah I agree that probably would’ve been the right thing in hindsight. I rushed into it, but I genuinely don’t think that the subject doesn’t meet the WP:GNG like is being alluded to. The criteria are all met and that’s why I am personally saying Keep in response to the AfD. I will continue to take in the advice and peer reviews from editors who know what they’re doing on here, and I will hopefully be able to grow as a result of it. But my own lack of precision in the fine details of editing on Wikipedia (which is a hyper-specific craft that is going to take time to develop the skills to do second-nature) don’t change the notability of the subject. Much like how WP:AKON states no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability — I believe the inverse to be just as true. Poor editing from a newcomer (myself) doesn’t make a subject that meets the criteria for WP:GNG .. suddenly not meet these criteria anymore because of the poor editing.

The article needs work. I am beyond open to any suggestions and help that anyone would offer. However, I still think deletion is not warranted. I will respect whatever decision is made, of course. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE The article in question was moved to draft by its author, 'worked on' and moved back to mainspace under a new title - John Mateer (filmmaker) resulting in this unclosed, redlinked AfD. Please do refer to John Mateer (filmmaker) before casting any vote on this AfD, which remains open for the same reasons it was originally nominated. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom. Not swayed by the author's Wikilawyering and bludgeoning.-KH-1 (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've moved the article back to its original title. Leaning on delete for lack of meeting the GNG. I don't think this is notable. Maybe later, but not now. ~Styyx^Talk? 19:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment THank you, Styyx, for moving the article back. Along its travels over the past few days, it lost its AFD tag so I have replaced that. Let the AFD discussion proceed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify When I suggested draftification, it was not to be taken literally as a thing to do during an AFD discussion but as an act to take in the closure of this AFD. I do fear though that time in Draft space will be short and this article might be back in main space within a day or two. Instead, I recommend submitting it to AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I moved the article to draft as was discussed and after changing the article name (also discussed), I tried to add it to AfC to get it reviewed — I am realizing now that I added it back to the main-space. I am really sorry. Trust me I wouldn’t have risked it just getting deleted. I spent a lot of time trying to begin cleaning it up. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god. I am sorry. I didn’t know that I had to wait for drafting it. I feel really stupid. My bad. I will let the discussion continue without further messing around with things. I will instead spend this time reading up on the rules of article creation/deletion etc. I apologize. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused because Draft:Article Name still seems to appear in search results. Is draft not the same as Sandbox? Sorry for a question that is likely very basic knowledge. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can just go ahead and Delete it honestly. It’s not even worth it at this point. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“ Not swayed by the author's Wikilawyering and bludgeoning.” Please go ahead and delete. I didn’t know that Wikipedia and the information on it was dictated by these sorts of things. Kind of appalling. What happened to the fact that AFD standards according to Wikipedia say not to vote upon the deletion? What about the fact that the subject quite literally meets every single criteria for WP:GNG? This is just social hour and I’m not into it. It doesn’t shock me to hear the editor retention here is horrible. You are all bullies. Delete the page. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4theloveofallthings, I didn't intend for my comments to lead to you quitting the project. We all make mistakes. I've been editing regularly for 9 years and if you come to my talk page, you find it full of comments from editors who are unhappy with something I've done. It's how you learn and become a better editor. You are free to retire if you want, but I think the message folks were sending you was that this article is not ready for main space. Some articles need a lot of time and attention to be ready for main space and that's the process of writing articles on Wikipedia. It's not quick and easy. I hope you reconsider, I think you still can make a contribution here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Society (1968 film)

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

Article fails WP:NFILM and does not have any references. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Japanese movie referenced on Japanes movie sites such as https://eiga.com/movie/70580/

It is also available on Amazon Prime Video service in Japan. Johan Burati (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Johan Burati, thanks for the information but could you tell me how this film passes WP:NFILM? If I've made a mistake or missed something I'm more than willing to withdraw the nomination. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My WP:BEFORE found no more refs that could meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, article creator's comment is inaccurate- how does database listings and services lend to notability? VickKiang (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the GNG criteria or NFILM. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Indrek Hargla. If a different redirect is preferred, please start a discussion on the redirect talk page or at WP:RFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melchior Wakenstede

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

Contested redirect. I don't think individual notability of this character is indicated; however, I have not performed an Estonian WP:BEFORE. Ovinus (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titular character of a bestselling book series (7 books so far), that has been translated into multiple languages (at least 5 translations) and adapted into films (trilogy of films, that premiered in 2022). That article is also the most suited to talk about the Melchior series in general as there is no reason to make articles about the individual books. Ivo (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Film, and Estonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Indrek Hargla per WP:FORK; or delete for failing WP:SIGCOV. This is an unnecessary content fork. I'm not seeing any reason to house this content separately from the article on Hargla at this point. We have zero content on the character itself in terms of literary or cultural analysis which means it fails GNG. Moving this content would highly benefit the article on Hargla by providing some context to his published works within the article on the author. If and when the article on Hargla developes further, and/or the content on the character becomes developed enough to warrant a fork we can always resplit the articles.4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ivo. The subject is the main character in seven bestselling novels. Disagree with 4meter4. Both articles can be expanded. Simply because they were created as little more than stubs doesn't make either subject less notable. Should both be expanded in separate articles. ExRat (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ExRat Based on what evidence and what policy? Articles on characters actually require sources about those characters with critical analysis/ significant coverage of the character in question. This means sources that actually analyze the character across the books and films as the main subject, not just within an individual review of a book or film. Just because a series has sold well and inspired screen adaptations, doesn't necessarily mean that significant publications addressing the character in those films and books actually exist. No evidence has been provided that the topic meets WP:SIGCOV, and with zero in depth independent sources as required by GNG on this topic I don't see how you can be voting keep. WP:INHERITED and WP:ILIKEIT arguments aren't convincing.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Who is invoking WP:ILIKEIT? Perhaps the article could be redirected to Indrek Hargla for now. Each of the novels could have their own articles in the future though, and where would the redirect for the character be then? ExRat (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ExRat I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. Without evidence of sources supporting a character article we simply can't have an article per policy at any point and time. A redirect/merge to the author is a reasonable solution, which is why I suggested it. That said, I think the most natural solution to the editorial problem would be to emulate the organization along the lines of Harry Potter; where the article is on the series as a whole itself. That should not be split off into individual books and characters until the article on the series is well developed (lots of sources and lengthy). In that article you can work on writing on each book, the character, the various media adaptions, etc. all in one page. Once a particular section is developed enough, then it can split off into its own article per policy at WP:SPINOFF. We should not be having tons of stub articles with so little information that they are essentially duplicates of one another, or have so little content that they make navigating to multiple pages unwieldy for our readers (just keep it all together until it needs to be broken out). I would start by writing on the series in the author article itself, and when it becomes unwieldy; move it to a page on the series with a summary in the author article and a main article tag. Look at J. K. Rowling#Publishing Harry Potter for example. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melchior the Apothecary, which actually mentions the character's name. There's no coverage that would cause a GNG pass, and no information that's worth merging anywhere. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's the film though. The character is the subject of seven novels. Perhaps the article could be redirected to Indrek Hargla for now. ExRat (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Indrek Hargla or Melchior the Apothecary. Nothing in this article or the Estonian one indicates this meets WP:GNG criteria for a stand-alone article. No, being the main character of several bestselling (in Estonia only?) novels is not enough to warrant keeping this, not unless there is independent, reliable coverage of this fact. If we can locate media or better, scholarly, articles analyzing this character, allowing us to write a proper reception/significance section then GNG would be met. Ditto if we would find something about the importance of the series, then we could rewrite this into an article about a book series or franchise. But if nothing like this exits, this is just WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd just like to reiterate that if it should be redirected, it should be redirected to Indrek Hargla, not Melchior the Apothecary, which is a film version of one of the novels. It would make much more sense to redirect it to Hargla's article. Also, it doesn't matter if a bestselling novel was bestselling in Estonia or Guinea-Bissau, if it is properly referenced, has significant coverage (in any language), and passes notability. English language Wikipedia doesn't place priority on articles or subjects by their language. ExRat (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melchior the Apothecary as per others above. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just want to make it clear that I oppose a redirect to the TV series Melchior the Apothecary because it is not the best redirect target. The best target is to the author Indrek Hargla where the character can be discussed in relation to the multiple books, and adaptations of those books (including the television series) which all feature the character Melchior Wakenstede. A merge of the material in Melchior Wakenstede to Indrek Hargla would have the character mentioned in the author's page in detail. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

California Film Awards

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

Article about a regional film award, referenced entirely to primary sourcing that is not support for notability. The notability test for film awards hinges not on using their own self-published websites about themselves to verify that they exist, but rather on using WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them to verify that they attract independent attention from the media. But six of the eight footnotes here are its own website, one more is a video of the ceremony unfolding on YouTube, and one is a deadlink from the blog of a non-notable organization with a direct affiliation, absolutely none of which represent GNG-worthy coverage about the awards in third-party sources. (Also, this was created by Neelix, though you'd most likely have to be an oldtimer to understand why I'm mentioning that.) Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and California. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was improved by removing defunct links, youtube links and by adding outside references. The festival has gained enough attention/coverage of local and international media (including India, Australia, Azerbaijan, Ireland and Indonesia) to prove that it is a notable event, and its awards are mentioned as notable film awards in their articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.107.131 (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NEVENT, and WP:ORG. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Even after weeding of materials, what is left are non-independent primary sources or press releases or interviews, or passing mentions of which do not address the subject directly and detail. Additionally it is not clear that the awards have been held in the last four years. Appears like it may now be defunct.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I have withdrawn my nomination, two editors have voted keep and found sources to demonstrate borderline notability. VickKiang (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Climax

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

Previously deleted. Except for The Anime Encyclopedia, which is a RS that is SIGCOV, this fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, WP:BEFORE reveals no more refs counting to notability. Russian version is no better, only having iffy press releases, including this. VickKiang (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Couldn't find any reviews in a search. Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 11:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Keep Changing vote based on discussion below. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could an admin please provide us with the reviews in the version of the article deleted on May 30, 2021. According to the prod reasoning, the article had a review from Okazu (though it noted the review was brief) and Mania, the latter of which is a reliable source for staff-written articles (WP:ANIME/RS). Link20XX (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, I found them myself [3], [4]. Both, especially the first of the two, seem to be significant coverage. When combined with the The Anime Encyclopedia source, it seems to meet WP:GNG. Link20XX (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Link20XX: I concur that these reviews are SIGCOV. However, I'm uncertain if these are RS. The Mania one has inconclusive reliability on WP:VG/RS, and I couldn't find discussions about the reliability of Okazu, though it's marked as a blog, but I'm also unfamiliar with the latter. If these two are indeed RS based on discussions I didn't find, please ping me. Many thanks for your time! VickKiang (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: Mania has had a consensus at WP:ANIME/RS for reliability for quite awhile as its editor-in-chief, Chris Beveridge, has been interviewed by Anime News Network [5] and Right Stuf [6]; he was also a guest of honor at Anime Boston [7]. As for the other source, while it is a blog, it is written by Erica Friedman, whom is considered to be a reliable individual per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Erika Friedman RS for yuri related anime & manga. Link20XX (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply! Though, I've seen WP:ANIME/RS and it's been situational since 2009, almost when the ANIMERS page was created. Hmmm... am I missing something? VickKiang (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mania's reliability has been brought up a few times at RS/N (1, 2, 3, 4, and each time it has come to the conclusion that the website is reliable or been used as a reliable source to compare to another source. The situational listing is because it has a fan-submission section called Maniacs, which is run by uncredited individuals with little editorial control. The rest of the website, however, was run by paid staff and has been established to be reliable. As for the listing on WP:VGRS#Inconclusive discussions, I notice that section also lists Behind the Voice Actors, despite a recent RfC considering that source to be reliable (see WP:RSP), so perhaps that section is out of date. Link20XX (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Upon a further look, the actual Okazu review excluding the footnotes is 150 words, borderline meeting SIGCOV. I think this is borderline notable now and am neutral about deletion, Donaldd23, do you think the new refs show borderline notability? If you concur with Link20XX I might withdraw the AfD. VickKiang (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Strong consensus established for keeping this article with no opposing views. Closing per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naukar (1943 film)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG with no sources except one trivial mention. Also couldn't find any sources google-wise, but the search is cluttered with various other topics. There is most likely reliable sources out there, but I can't find them, and it definitely isn't fit for Wikipedia in its uncited state. VTVL (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. VTVL (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As of Box Office India, It widely distributed in India, It is in 5 Number verdict as a Hit movie so As of WP:NFO, It is notable. Contributor008 (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An independent entry in Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, say no more. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable film as above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable film. I am not sure we will find a lot of coverage about a film released in 1943. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifthapril (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meet guidelines Lightburst (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belated life

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

PROD removed with rationale "sources deserve review by others".

Let's review these sources and find out if this film is notable enough to have the notability tag removed and the article kept, or if the film should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Uzbekistan, and Russia. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The win at the Omsk film festival would seem notable. Well-sourced as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Taste of Relation

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

PROD removed with rationale "remove prod - has some reasonably substantive reviews, shoudl probably go to AfD at minimum."

Let's decide if the reviews are enough to pass WP:NFILM and have the notability tag removed, or if the article should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Donaldd23: The review websites looks iffy. Looking at this, it appears to me that the reviewing guidelines is low, I doubt that reviewers are professional looking at here. This is also a minor festival site. The winning of the California Film Awards gives me pause on deletion. I disagree that it should be considered as especially major to meet WP:NFILM criteria 3. However, it does have a WP article, compare WP:NWEB, which clarifies that when an award has a WP article it should be considered significant. On the contrary, the article for the award is sourced from non-independent refs. So I do agree that the notability here is doubtful, but if it's agreed that the award fails to meet WP:NFILM I would then vote delete. However, I do weakly concur with the deprod- this has some reviews of iffy notability and awards that could go either way, therefore, deletion is not uncontroversial IMHO. VickKiang (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that delete is more popular, I'd be happy to change my vote to weak delete. VickKiang (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is referenced almost entirely to directory entries and online stores like Amazon or Best Buy, none of which are support for notability — and the only two sources that are in any way analytical come from sources whose reliability for the purposes of WP:GNG is at best dubious. The rule isn't that film reviews can come from just anywhere — it's that they have to come from reliable sources. And even awards aren't necessarily automatic notability clinchers either — "notability because awards" doesn't indiscriminately attach to just every award that exists, but looks for either (a) top level national film awards like the Oscars, the BAFTAs or the Canadian Screen Awards, or (b) a narrow tier of internationally prominent film festivals (Berlin, Cannes, TIFF, Sundance, etc.) that get media coverage, and a film cannot accrue notability on the basis of awards that have to be sourced to the festival's own self-published website about itself because media coverage about the award win is nonexistent. That is, in order to make a film notable for winning an award, it is necessary to prove that the award itself is a notable one in the first place, which hasn't been shown by any sources here. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Slater Jewell-Kemker as it seems no one objects to this. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Unstoppable

AfDs for this article:

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

First nomination ended in no consensus, but notability question has remained since December 2021. I found no evidence of this film passing WP:NFILM. Lots of awards listed, but all are small, minor awards. Not every award is notable as anyone can give out an award. Let's decide once and for all if this film should be kept and have the notability tag removed, or if it should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Environment, and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing here was never solid or notability-building in the first place — the strongest source is a glancing namecheck of the film's existence in a fairly short blurb about the filmmaker's participation in an event nestled inside a not-otherwise-about-her liveblog of the overall event, which isn't enough — but the first discussion ended up landing no consensus because nobody weighed in at all besides me and one other user. I do still believe it's a delete, for the record, but as the nominator the first time I'd really just be repeating myself if I exhaustively listed all the problems with each individual source, so let's just leave it at "everything I said in the first discussion still applies". Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant international coverage, in the USA, and in Australia. There's also no shortage of blurbs from renowned sources around the world, such as Variety, Al Jazeera, Toronto Star, Avanti and Marie Claire; while they don't meet GNG, does note that there's international interest. Also, why would this ever be a delete? How would it not be a redirect to Slater Jewell-Kemker? Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are all either passing mentions, or articles about the participants in the documentary...not the documentary itself. The "significant" coverage you pointed out...the CNN and Australian articles are about the director. They would help her article pass any notability question...but they do not support notability for this film. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then how, User:Donaldd23 could this possibly be a delete, rather than a redirect - or a merge? Nfitz (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are viable options too. My point is that the film does not stand on its own and should not have its own article. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 16 October 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nila (character)

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

Fictional character with just one film appearance (2.0 (film)). Does not meet WP:GNG as it lacks independent coverage in reliable sources including enough real-world/out-of-universe perspective. Most of the content is sourced from interviews/primary sources which do not establish notability.

Stand-alone article is not warranted in any case per WP:NOPAGE as it can be covered in the film article. Blazin777 (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Blazin777:, I understand your point that only one film of the character made you feel that the it is not suitable of having a Wikipedia page. But the fact is it is part of a film series and it may significantly have a future apperance in the project as part of the film series/cinematic universe. Also may I know why the Appearance part of the song is removed from the page (since that added more importantance to the character in connection with the protagonist)

Please provide your view and rationale.

Thank you. 456legend(talk) 15:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough to show the character is notable. Need to have secondary sources that are focused on the character, not the people playing that character. Has only appeared in one film. Not enough to show independent notability. Ravensfire (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: okay fine sir. I understood the reason. Delete it. I have no points to put in further. Thank you

Delete I would have usually advocated a redirect but Nila is too common of a character name for this. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fictional character that has only appeared in a single film, and has no sources that would indicate that she is notable enough to warrant an individual article. As mentioned above, Nila is too common of a name for multiple fictional characters for a Redirect to be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass real world notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Last of the Jedi

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

See maintenance tags. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jude Watson, should probably still have a bit of a blurb but it doesn't appear to be notable enough for a stand-alone page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Especially considering each book has its own individual article. Could probably merge a lot of them or just straight redirect depending on quality of sourcing. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Another Cringy Username: The book titles in the Jude Watson article all redirect here, so it does not seem to be the case that "each book has its own individual article". Or did I miss them? Daranios (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope! A lot of series have individual articles for each book, so I just saw the live links and assumed. Thank you for the correction! Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - without stating any preference, I am compelled to say that after going to article to check those tags, I was drawn into reading it (article) in its entirety - as someone who didn't know about the work, I found it interesting.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jude Watson or keep: None of the tags as such are a reason for deletion, but rather the indicated problems should be fixed through editing. The main question is if there are secondary sources which provide enough information so they can be fixed, as a proper WP:BEFORE search would show, which should be done prior to the nomination. In our case, such a search should include the individual books, as they are put together here in a summary article on the series in accordance with WP:ATD-M. This and this article have some relevant content. Popular Series Fiction for Middle School and Teen Readers is indicated by Google books to have content, but I don't have access. Is there more? Daranios (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think the series is just about notable enough per WP:NBOOKS and per Thebiguglyalien, WP:DINC. Though the article does need significant help because it does seem to be little more than plot summaries at present. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs some cleanup and additional information, not deletion. TITANOSAURUS 05:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detention (2003 film)

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

Article fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. Found only one review on Rotten Tomatoes. Needs two or more reviews in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is a TV Guide review and a Video Business review. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would keep but that plot looks copied from a box. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, review at RT (as mentioned by nominator) and a second at TV Guide (as mentioned by Somebodyodkfkdt). Plot is almost 100% copied from IMdB, and needs to be rewritten. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw nomination per consensus and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sa Pagluha ng Anghel

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

Per WP:NF, no independent coverage apparent, no evidence the film was released BOVINEBOY2008 14:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. Skynxnex (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any evidence of release, and production wasn't notable enough to warrant keeping article. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally unsourced and fails notability; seems like the article was created by one of the lead actors and then abandoned. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nomination. Fifthapril (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A triple nothing, no references, no release, no reviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NFILM with a possible WP:HOAX perhaps. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweater Whether

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

Sweater Whether

Non-notable unreleased film. The film's claim to fame is that it is India's first non-environmental film whose production was carbon-neutral. The only reference is in Digital Journal, which is a reliable source, and is an interview with the producer, and so is not independent or secondary. There is no mention of significant coverage of the green production of the film, or any aspect of the film. The article only says that the film will exist. We knew that. This article was created in article space, moved to draft space, and then moved back to article space with the edit summary

The Film has it’s own google knowledge panel

. Duh. That doesn't establish notability. Draftification is all right, but not moving unilaterally to draft space because that has already been done once. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Assam. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. I am unable to locate additional reliable sources. The primary contributor also appears to be connected. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails every flavour of notability by some margin. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleGrazing (talk • contribs)
Comment it appears the article has been moved back into draft space by the user who moved it into article space in the first place. A procedural close with an understanding that the article should not be moved into article space without the approval of an AfC reviewer might be warranted. W 42 13:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. An interview with the director is not an independent source for the film, and that appears to be the best there is as far as coverage goes. May be an issue of WP:TOOSOON given that the film hasn't even released yet, but according to what I'm seeing it's a short film with a $20,000 budget; I wouldn't be surprised if coverage for this project does not materialize at any point in the future. - Aoidh (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article was moved back to article space. My own opinion is that the moving of articles, either to a different namespace or to change the title, should be prohibited while an AFD is in progress. Any move can be done by the closer. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Media

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

Article about an unreleased film, not referenced to anywhere near enough reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFO. As always, we don't want an article about every film that enters the production pipeline -- with a few admitted exceptions for really high profile projects on the order of Star Wars or Marvel films, we primarily want articles about films that have come out the end of the production pipeline and been seen by critics and the public. But this is referenced to a couple of very short production blurbs and an unreliable source that isn't support for notability at all, and there's no prospect of increased coverage in the future. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to secure the permanent notability of a never-released film project that died in development a decade ago. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no sources, and it's been shelved since 2008, so we likely won't see any more. Oaktree b (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Queen of Media is more common as a nickname than an unreleased film. If inclusion is warranted, it's best done as being part of a list of minor unreleased movies (if such article exists). InvadingInvader (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also did not find any reliable sources. I agree with the nominator that per Wikipedia:NFOE the film fails to meet notability criteria as it does not have enough sources and it does not fall within the exceptions noted there. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antifaust

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

Fails WP:NFILM as no sources I can find discuss this to any significant extent, with the exception of the interview source which is essentially a Q&A pre-arranged non-independent interview. Translating the provided sources do not demonstrate this is a notable film. The fact all known copies were considered lost for many years until 2021 indicates this had no lasting impact, while other sources simply discuss the finding of the tape as news. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Russia. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NFILM; the director is not notable either. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Treasure

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

Completely unsourced article about a film, not making any serious claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films don't get an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, but must reliably source some evidence of significance (critical attention, noteworthy awards, etc.) -- but existence is the only claim on offer here, the article on the Croatian Wikipedia says even less than this does and cites just one primary source that isn't support for notability either, and I can find absolutely no WP:GNG-worthy sources about it on a Google search under either the English or Croatian titles.
Furthermore, this was prodded in January as "non-notable film", and then deprodded a few days later as "notable film" -- but you don't make a film notable by throwing the word "notable" around, you make a film notable by adding sources to improve the article, which never happened.
As I don't have access to any databases in which I could retrieve 25-year-old Croatian media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with access to such resources can find improved sourcing to salvage it with -- but simply existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to cite any reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Croatia. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's relatively easy to confirm its existence in Croatian sources - with a bit of trouble as its name is partially or fully ambiguous with other movie names and other works of art, but it definitely appears in all relevant indices as such. The general notability is somewhat dubious, because significant coverage online is scarce. I found a 2012 article in a mainstream web portal that includes it in a list of the best Croatian comedies. The history of the Pula Film Festival notes in their timeline for 1996 that this film caused a controversy there because it was shown despite its original language being English. That's about it. It's possible that it's becoming a cult trash film, but not sure. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I guess, based on the discussion above, sources are likely to exist in the native language. Good faith assumption. Oaktree b (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep poorly sourced articles just because we presume that better sources might exist than anybody has actually found or used — once notability has been questioned, it's necessary to demonstrate that sufficient GNG-worthy sourcing definitely does exist, and just speculating on possibilities isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film has an entry in this book on the history of Croatian film: Ivo Škrabalo (2008). "Izgubljeno blago". Hrvatska filmska povijest ukratko: 1896-2006. V.B.Z. p. 216-218. The book discusses how the film began as a project by an amateur film maker. It took a ten year period to make, during which time that film maker became involved in documentary film making professionally. When it was released it became a critical success in Croatia. There's a plot summary and commentary on critical response to the work among the Croatian press/public. The film is also discussed briefly in this second book on Croatian film history, although the coverage is minimal in comparison to the first source: Nikica Gilić (2010). Uvod u povijest hrvatskog igranog filma. Leykam international. p. 145. ISBN 9789537534493. Given that two books on cinema history in Croatia address the work, and the fact that the one source indicates that there are Croatian language media reviews, I think this should pass WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of sources which are not "brief", nor presumed rather than found and shown, may help to determine the notability of the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not seeing much here, and a Google search turns up nothing that would help it meet WP:GNG, but I didn't look hard enough. =) Even so, given the above, I would really like to see some reliable sources to help this article stay. It's got some potential, but somebody needs to come in and fix it, and if we can find them in English so much the better. Worst case, maybe transwiki to the Croatian version of Wikipedia (if it exists). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:47, 22 October 2022 (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. I don't see Merge as a good alternative as Mithun's Dream Factory is mostly a list of films without any additional content about each film. A redirect from this title to this article might be an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Partigya

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Mithun's Dream Factory. DareshMohan (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2022 (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. Legoktm (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of Girls

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

Article about a short film series, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFO. The main notability claim here is that the first episode went viral, but that's not well-quantified by reliable sources -- of the seven footnotes here, one is just reduplicated repetition of one of the others, so there are really only six distinct sources, but three of those are its own self-published content about itself, one more is a Slashdot post, and the only two that actually come from real WP:GNG-worthy media are both just "local kids do stuff" in the local media of their own hometown, thus failing to establish wider significance.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have much, much stronger referencing than this is showing. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Minnesota. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I also was able to find a multi-paragraph story:

[8], Johnson, Lisette. Jewish Exponent; Philadelphia [Philadelphia]. 22 Mar 2007: 42. That talks about about the the business viability of the online video market and the platform it's on: Ryan Wood's seven-minute short film was shown at the Toronto Film Festival. Then he posted it on a new kind of Web site that pays filmmakers - professional or amateur - each time viewers click on their work. and Nor would Wood disclose how much he earned from two films he's posted on the site, "Pitching Mother" and "Fear of Girls." Even though "Fear of Girls," his latest, is one of Revver's most-viewed films, with more than 9,500 hits.
[9] It also seems like it got an additional one paragraph review/blurb in the Star (so same source as largely used but another writer): Arginteanu, Judy, et al. "item world; local news and views." Star Tribune [Minneapolis, MN], 3 Feb. 2006, p. 02F. Gale General OneFile. Accessed 4 Oct. 2022.: The hip, 21st-century phrase is "viral internet marketing," but it sounds suspiciously like good ol' word of mouth. Whatever, it's responsible for the runaway e-success of "Fear of Girls," an endearingly comic 11-minute ode to nerddom .... by Wednesday it hit the No. 1 spot of top blogsites on Daypop.com.
This doesn't do much other than as a bit of extra, but it seems that the official Google Video blog did a short interview with Wood about it: [10]

So, not super strong but it seems to just meet WP:GNG. Skynxnex (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources provided by Skynxex are merely passing mentions and do not rise to the level of analysis/detail that we would need to consider it significant coverage. None of the sources listed are about the series directly, except for the video interview which can not be used to prove GNG because as an interview it lacks independence from the subject. If we had some independent reviews of this web series that would be significant RS, but as it is there just isn't enough here to demonstrate notability.4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tezaab – The Acid of Love

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "sources on Google Books" with no improvements/reviews added, so the sources were added myself. There is no reason for this to have an article because the only thing that can be sourced is "It is an adaptation of the American film Unfaithful". Could not extract any new information. DareshMohan (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to search with different keywords but no significant coverage found. Fifthapril (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM. There is only one book which covers the film in google book, BollySwar: 2001 - 2010, which I would not consider reliable because the publisher is a vanity press. Other than that, all the other hits in google books are referring to a similarly named Hindi film from 1988. No evidence of independent significant coverage in RS.4meter4 (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect—The opening says this is an adaptation of Unfaithful (2002 film); therefore, merge what can be into that article and redirect the title thereafter. --13:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete as lack of WP:SIGCOV, Fails WP:NFILM. Ginbopewz (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2022 (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. The new sources provided appear to be database listings like IMDb, there are no reviews or any written content besides a cast list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insaaf Ki Jung

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found in a BEFORE. All current citations are databases or dead links. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable reviews on Rediff/Bollywood Hungama. DareshMohan (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DareshMohan: I added a link about the film published by Bollywood Hungama[11], please check it out. ZanciD (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep - As I added this [12] review link on the film by Box Office and [13] this link from Hindi GeetMala shows GNG. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 11:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. @Shshshsh: @Suryabeej:. I might be missing something, but when I click onto Bollywood Hungama it states Sorry currently there are no critic reviews available for this movie. Anyone know if there was a critic review that was archived, because otherwise this is just a database entry, similar to this link provided- cast and song listings are routine? Per WP:NFILM, To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database. These are IMHO routine databases that fail to demonstrate significant coverage that meets WP:GNG, or full critic reviews that might pass WP:NFILM. Further, I couldn't find evidence that high box office could pass GNG/NFILM, quantity doesn't indicate notability. Unfortunately, my WP:BEFORE search mainly found trivial mentions or an 1980s film of a similar name, which has more hits. Therefore, I appreciate your efforts in rescuing this article, but currently they are insufficient IMO. Again, many thanks, and let's agree to disagree, please ping me if you find more refs! VickKiang (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2022 (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.

Templates