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.

Shortcut

WP:FILMDEL

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 characters; 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthi Venkatesh

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

Case of WP:TOOSOON. Please discuss. Jean Stair (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the CSD should not have been declined by a non-admin. David.moreno72 08:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (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. - Nabla (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cochin Masthaara

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

No one has been editing this article for the last twenty minutes. This article has only two words and has a vague meaning. This article might be an unreliable source as there is no information or anything in this article that qualifies it to be in Wikipedia. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This "film" doesn't appear to exist as there are no Google results for its name. Everymorning (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Lack of context and no claim of notability. JDDJS (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2016 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Empire Film Group

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

Deceptively written promotion from non notable company. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing does not go beyond mentions, with some sources not even mentioning them. The awards listed were not won by this company. A search found nothing good for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the company has two films which pass the threshold for notability - Meet the Blacks and Supremacy (film). They had theatrical release and reviews. Not good reviews, and not much revenue, but they did show to paying customers in commercial theaters. But the company itself would fail WP:CORP. The company should get a brief mention in the film articles, but there's not enough for a standalone article. See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Deon_Taylor John Nagle (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's an abundance of references on the entry itself. Googling shows other coverage, even if the first page is Facebook and social media results. Asdfsadfsadfsadfsad (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HiAsdf etc, what other accounts have you edited with, which ones are blocked? Which accounts edits that I have noticed have led to your current stalking of me? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They've earned awards made notable work, good or not. The company can meet WP:CORP, the solution here is expansion, not deletion. South Nashua (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can they meet WP:CORP? Expansion with what? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They've made a few things with a few notable actors, and it seems like there are more to come. There's probably also more information regarding the current work they've done. South Nashua (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing, nothing amounting to genuine independent notability and substance, simply a basis of awards is not an automatic acceptance of notability, and then there's the matter of there being no automatic inherited notability; there's simply nothing its own genuinely convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The features and people associated with them may/do merit articles, but the company itself? No. --Calton | Talk 23:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – more WP:ARTSPAM by WP:COI accounts in spite of our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promotion. Citobun (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The company's works might be notable, but the sources only mention the company itself in passing. 1292simon (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2017 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siliconn City

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Also the creater of the page is closely associated with the film. Their username (Vsavanur) matches the "line producer" (Vijay Savanur) that they added to the infobox. It doesn't show up unless you edit the page because line producer isn't a supported param. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there are a few articles about this film. I'd stub it and say it needs references.Timtempleton (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. -- Dane ^talk 02:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 02:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some regional films do not make a lot of promotion but it shows traces of notability --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 08:59, 14 January 2017 (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. WP:NPASR. Ineligible for soft deletion as a contested PROD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Cult of Sincerity

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

Released back in 2008 and previously de-PRODDED, this internet film doesn't seem to have (ever) met WP:NFILM. The references in the article are all deadlinks but don't appear to have been from reliable sources. And my own Google searches didn't reveal anything suggesting notability. (Note that a Gsearch for "cult of sincerity" will produce hits unrelated to this work). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film; no third-party sources. If it was anything remotely special it'd have more than two questionable sources in eight years. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 31 December 2016 (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. Seeing as offline sources and sources used in the article appear to work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age of Nigerian cinema

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

The leading reference for the term "golden age of Nigerian cinema" is Wikipedia. My friend Mr. Google turns up 15 hits for the text as quoted, mostly mirrors. Widening it slightly gives only one thing that might qualify as establishing this as a thing, this from Al Jazeera, which does not properly support the term. I have to conclude this is a neologism or WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First of all, this article is not a stand alone topic on its own, but rather a spin-off for the article: Cinema of Nigeria. The "Golden Age" is a fluid term used to describe a specific period in Nigerian cinema history and it has been used in several books and journals to describe the said period: 1, 2, 3, 4, and oh, the aljazeera article was clearly talking about this same period, so it actually "properly supports" the term! While the term is not popular (which is expected, since it's about history), its usage for this article is indeed justified. If you feel the title misrepresents the topic (which I don't think it does), maybe you can suggest a better title or make a move request.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many Google hits is not a sufficient criteria for notability. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide information and if reliable sources are available to this effect, then the article is good to go. Fact: There are some notable articles with encyclopedic content which have reliable sources that you may not find online. I only just realized that the very sources I added to validate the information in this article have already been listed here by the creator! Eruditescholar (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources cited in the article shows that the term is suitable for stand-alone inclusion. The term has been discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. Although it is not required to have a stand-alone page, I feel like Jamie Tubers' decision to create said page is sound to say the least. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:15, 24 December 2016 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undateable John

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

This is one of two articles that were written in order to promote Kash Hovey. A look for this film shows little coverage beyond some announcements that Joan Jett was going to produce the movie. There hasn't been any true coverage for the movie since 2013, so it wouldn't pass WP:NFF any time soon and likely won't pass until if/when it releases. (On a side note I'm unsure as to how big Hovey's role actually is, given that his name doesn't even show up on the main IMDb page until you go to "all cast", which implys that it's likely a minor role.)

I recommend salting this to prevent recreation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, full disclosure: I've blocked both of the accounts that have been editing/creating the Hovey articles for reasons that are listed on their talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, barring any evidence of actual attention by reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't IMDB Lite. --Calton | Talk 07:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Calton. Well said. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2016 (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. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and Cocaine

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

This is one of two film articles that was created in order to make Kash Hovey appear to be notable and I dare say this is likely an attempt to promote Hovey. A search brings up no coverage in WP:RS that would show that this passes WP:NFILM.

This was originally a PROD by Largoplazo, but I thought that this would be more final. Full disclosure, I just blocked the article's creator for several reasons (two of which were promotion and the possibility of a shared COI account), which are visible on their talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend salting this to prevent further recreation, given that there was an attempt to recreate the article for Hovey only hours after the first AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Repeating my PROD nomination: Non-notable film. Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NFILM. Via Google one finds only the faintest of coverage in any independent source. Largoplazo (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely not notable, virtually no coverage aside from passing mentions and promo material. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk
I also want to note that I've listed his other film Undateable John for AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:24, 20 December 2016 (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. Sandstein 16:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhu Bhutum

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

This not-yet-released film is not notable that I can find. I see evidence that principle photography has begun per WP:NFF but do not believe it is notable. Please see the dialog on the author's talk page as well as the article talk page. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the third article created by this user for this film. I do not wish to appear as WP:TE so submitted as AfD to get consensus either way. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. So far it just looks like hype and celebrity following. As the guideline says "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guideline." After it comes out if it has popular or criticl acclaim it might achieve notability, but not now. See WP:NOT YET (films). --Bejnar (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added IMDB Page in external sources Starlight 00:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpadma (talk • contribs)

Note WP:CITINGIMDB I don't think this has any net effect on the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCrazedBeast (talk • contribs) 01:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the beginning of principle photography is a threshold which a film usually has to pass in order to be considered eligible for an article (there are rare films which are so anticipated, that they would pass WP:GNG). But it is just a threshold, as Benjar points out. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:29, 15 December 2016 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh - Hindi films actor

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

Non-notable Bollywood actor from the 50s. Fails WP:GNG. He has appeared in many films, but they don't appear to be independently notable either to meet WP:NACTOR. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 29 December 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Asch

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

Asch does not meet the general notability guidelines. These require multiple sources providing indepth coverage. Only one source provides source, the other is just passing. My search for additional sources did not show other promising sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 17 December 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakalurakkam

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

Non notable film with unheard of actors. Fails WP:GNG. Even the source is broken PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM; no evidence that the film has had any impact Spiderone 14:05, 26 December 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ardhanareeswaran

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

Non notable film. Article was created before principal photography commenced. Therefore fails WP:FILM. A Malayalam movie with a similar (not same) title and an entirely different cast and crew was made later. Most of the references are bogus as well. Nothing has been heard of this movie since 2011. PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM; no evidence that the film will ever be released or be notable Spiderone 14:06, 26 December 2016 (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. Not the strongest arguments for retaining the article but clearly no consensus for deletion after many weeks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dharti Kahe Pukar Ke

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

Unsourced article on a film of no evident significance. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:@JzG: I have personally added some sources to the articles if any wrong do correct it. The article has significant but needs clean up --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 08:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does need significant clean-up. Ajay Devgn is a huge Bollywood actor and the film is probably his only Bhojpuri appearance, giving it a lot of trivia significance. Probably [1] will suggest why Bhojpuri movies did not attract much attention earlier. Jupitus Smart 09:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film stars two notable actors Ajay Devgn and Manoj Tiwari. As Bhojpuri films are a small industry, most of the coverage it received would also be in Bhojpuri. Elia Soaten (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Escape (2017 film)

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

No references provided in the article. I checked Google news and could not come up with a single news related to this film. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Chinese version of the article has two solid sources discussing the film; filming started last May in Hong Kong. [2], [3]. Google Translate changes the name to "Comparative Study" but you can see the Chinese characters are identical. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 01:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Мандичка's findings. Мандичка, is there an IMDb page for this movie? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Despite a lack of English citations, there are certainly Chinese sources available, so I'd say that it'd be more beneficial for the article to have more references rather than for it to be outright deleted. @Erik: After I did a search, this movie doesn't have an IMDb page yet. –Matthew - (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Day (2005 film)

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. All the sources mentioned are websites considered as blogs by WP:ICTF. Searching also does not offer any better sources Jupitus Smart 03:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the movie is clearly non-notable. I could only find two reliable sources – 1 & 2 – both of which give a passing mention of it. In fact, both of these sources are focussing on this movie's actress - Disha Dinakar. Her article is also up for deletion. We cannot redirect it anywhere, as it's a wrong title. It should have been titled as One Day (2015 film). BTW, this movie's article has been proded before. - NitinMlk (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's hard to find sources because of the other films that exist with the same title; that being said, the onus is on proving notability and no evidence of this can be found Spiderone 09:44, 21 December 2016 (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. Sandstein 14:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom (2016 Malayalam film)

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

Non notable film, fails WP:GNG. The sources are classified as blogs by WP:ICTF or are IMDB links. Jupitus Smart 03:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Sources in the article are unreliable. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:32, 26 December 2016 (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. A redirect can perhaps be created separately. Sandstein 15:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Canadian Film Craftspeople

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

Does not appear to have significant coverage in third-party sources. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Appears to have indicia of notability as a legitimate trade organization. Montanabw^(talk) 19:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a branch of UNIFOR, I see. I've added that category to the page. I suppose we could simply redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No prejudice against recreation in the future if proper reliable source coverage can be located to support an article, but no claim of notability ever entitles an article topic to an exemption from having to pass GNG just because it exists. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the org exists, but this is not a reason enough to have an encyclopedia article. WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2016 (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. Obviously Youtube videos as primary sources can't be a basis for keeping an article. We'd need reliable secondary sources. See WP:GNG. Sandstein 16:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USS Utah (SSBN-745)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG Quote: "Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details." This is very minor element of a notable film, but not in any way meritorious of a Wikipedia article in its own right. The three references given are all dead links, retrieved 5 years prior to the article being created. Parkywiki (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep: I disagree with your opinion completely. The element in the film aspect is irrelevant. I believe the Utah's role in the film is rather significant, in that particular scene. Their is no limit to articles on the Wikipedia. Additionally, technically their are four links regarding references. The first reference is the important one (youtube.com video of the Utah's role in the film) and validates the almost the entire article. The other three references I can not remove and they came with the template I used, as they do not show up in the edit screen, if someone can delete those particular three internet links that would be fine. Other Wikipedia pages exist on fictional ships, of varying (debatable) roles or prominence in their film, written or other medium, This article is no different. Additionally, articles exist on other fictional characters, including those of Stargate, or Star Wars, or Star Trek. I created this article and believe it needs to stay.

Combatpac (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Combatpac (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I just reviewed it. First reference is invalid, the other two are are duds. Clearly fails to assert WP:GNG. No encyclopedic content. scope_creep (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Fictional warship that only appeared in one movie. No reason to have a separate article for this, and no reason for the infobox, either. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Torpedo it. It gets one whole mention in the movie synopsis, and that's tacked on as a minor detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I have respect for creator's intentions when making the article, it simply does not have enough third-party, reliable sources to support the subject's notability outside of the film. Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Parsecboy (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakalurakkam

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

Non notable film with unheard of actors. Fails WP:GNG. Even the source is broken PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM; no evidence that the film has had any impact Spiderone 14:05, 26 December 2016 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Lake (film)

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

Unreferenced, and searches turn up no indication that this film satisfies WP:NFILM, only blogs and IMDB seemed to take notice (and not kindly). Should also note that most of the blue-linked actors/actresses in this article are 'best know for their role in Ghost Lake'... Keep clicking, and you'll find an entire constellation of zero-reference, self-congratulatory articles whose common thread seems to be director Jay Woelfel. However, I don't typically edit in this area so I'm open to being educated regarding reliable sources I may have missed. Antepenultimate (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not familiar with this film. The IMDb claims that this was a low-budget, direct-to-video release. There is probably no information about its box office performance. Dimadick (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of evidence notability under either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news articles surrounding the film exist on Google News. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Altieri

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Ajpolino (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nom that subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable actor. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:07, 3 January 2017 (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. MER-C 05:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wire Walker Studios

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

No evidence of passing WP:COMPANY, as there are lots of unreliable sources that do not establish notability, and no reliable sources can be found that could be added to the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Underneath the inflated claims and PR puffery, I'm not seeing any real sign of real-world notability. --Calton | Talk 23:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a promotional article by a single-purpose account. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a means of self-promotion. Citobun (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2017 (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. Just ask if a copy for Draft: space is required. Black Kite (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Main Punjab Nahin Jaoongi

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

Unsourced and most likely isn't notable. CyanoTex (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The film appears notable, at least among the gossip circles (see [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc.). As the film's cast is not yet firmed up and principal photography has not yet begun, it is probably too soon to create this article. I've already had to correct one fact: Iman Ali has dropped out of the production. Let's wait a while to see if this film's planning phase shakes out and actually makes it into production. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

| Noted. Also, the guy could have done a better job on the article, to be honest._ CyanoTex (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @CyanoTex: AFD is not a venue to punish bad writing. If the article needs to be improved, improve it. AFD is only to discuss whether there are sufficient sources from which to build a valid article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

| Noted._ CyanoTex (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Move to Draftspace Needs more than gossip rags. Unsourced, and fails WP:NFILM: Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. I would not be opposed to a recreation once it's released (assuming it makes WP:GNG ) or moving to Draftspace for the time being. ^Avic _ennasis @ 17:06, 18 Kislev 5777 / 17:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2016 (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 The Three Bogatyrs. Sandstein 14:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Bogatyrs on Distant Shores

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

Page is irrelevant as there is already an adequate section on this film in The_Three_Bogatyrs See: The_Three_Bogatyrs#The_Three_Bogatyrs_on_Distant_Shores_.282012.29 Parkywiki (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it well now, and I don`t think it should be deleted.Thanks--CARROT4231 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)--CARROT4231 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: CARROT4231 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I linked this with the Russian Wikipedia's page and I found this site, which looks to be about the equivalent of Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, as it collects critic reviews from very specific outlets, which are listed here. I don't know how discerning they are, but if they're similar to either of the aforementioned two, then the reviews here (seven of them) could help establish notability. I'll ask the Russia WP to help out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this review and this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Three Bogatyrs. Almost all plot summary and unreferenced. No need for standalone article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:53, 2 January 2017 (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. Discounting comments from a WP:SPA, there is clear consensus that this is WP:TOOSOON. It can be recreated when better sourcing exists. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Cinderella Christmas (2017 movie)

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

I see no evidence of independent notability per NFLIM and possibly TOOSOON. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It got a little bit of attention, such as this blurb from Entertainment Weekly, but there doesn't seem to be significant coverage. As far as I can tell, the coverage is limited to air dates. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has already been shown in France, USA and UK (Channel 5). IMdb entry includes 2 critic reviews so far. It is a modern variation on the Cinderella story and has a well-known lead Emma Rigby, see Daily Mail interview re UK showing. Note it is actually a 2016 movie as it is being shown in 2016, so a rename would be reasonable. Cjc13 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Since my comment the page has indeed been moved to A Cinderella Christmas (2016 movie) and further details have been made to the page by the creator of the page. Cjc13 (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another tired Cinderella retread, and mashing it up with Christmas doesn't automatically make it worthy of an article. On a side note, I'm not sure how "well known" Emma Rigby is (I myself have never heard of her) considering her relatively small body of work, plus a Daily Mail (of all things) interview hardly does a lot in establishing notability. Also, IMDb is an open-submission site, and I saw no links to said critical reviews. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 19:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:IMDB discounts any user-submitted content including reviews. A lot of routine coverage here so I don't think it meets WP:NFILM. Mkdw ^talk 07:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched for this movie on Wikipedia a few weeks ago after watching it on TV. At the time, this entry did not exist yet. To find out more information about the movie and the actors that were in it required some internet searching. I was particularly interested in the lead actress, that I then noticed was in an episode of "Death in Paradise", and realized that she is in fact a British actress. There were other information about the movie that I was interested in and it would be nice to keep and grow this entry.--Kaye555 (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC) — Kaye555 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Absence of good evidence one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Maza Jeev

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

I CSD nominated this per WP:SNOW but it was denied so I'm taking it here - it is pretty close to being pure vandalism given that the creator has created it in mainspace at least three times (including the current version), had it moved to draftspace at least twice, had the draft rejected repeatedly, had several editors pointing out the things that are missing, and has now cut and pasted the rejected draft without attempting to address any of the issues. Of course an article doesn't have to pass AfC, but bypassing the rejection of AfC reviewers three times and creating the article in mainspace anyway is just disruptive. Specifically, the film lacks notability per WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. There is one source that's borderline reliable (a city edition of Times of India - that's generally not considered a reliable source but might be acceptable together with multiple other sources, of which there are none). bonadea contributions talk 17:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: I strongly oppose the deletion of the same the reason for the same are

1- TOI is the supreme newspaper of India and its sources are applicable for the courts of India than Wikipedia must too accept it
2- The film may not be notable to many as it is a regional film and in the East indian language which is a regional language
3- The verifiers of wikipedia lack to justify the problems in my article u may visit my draft and check its history if I make corrections the other verifier undos the same which is unfair
4- U can find sources of the film on the world wide Web or in many sites which i believe doesn't lakhs notability

As i have been repetitively saying my intentions are to expand the reach of Wikipedia to everyone its violation is my own violation so I don't entertain the same --†Ïv㉫Ǹ Ｇ✿Ǹ＄Aしv㉫＄ 09:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your good intentions are not in question even though it does look like you are ignoring the comments from multiple editors on your draft, but what you say above does not really address the main question: does the film meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films or the general notability guideline? One of the AfC reviewers asked for at least four or five independent sources discussing the film in some depth; there are currently three sources (two of which have been added by another editor). Sources do not have to be in English, but they have to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and as mentioned above, the city pages (as opposed to the main edition) of Times of India are usually considered to be less reliable in terms of showing notability. This is particularly true for entertainment news - and indeed, if you read this source it is rather clear that it is not particularly factual and unbiased - it reads like a rewrite of a press release from the movie makers. --bonadea contributions talk 11:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Writing an article is not vandalism in any sense of the word. The deeply flawed AFC process is entirely optional and no editor should be penalized for declining to go through that ordeal. Whether to delete this article should be debated on the notability of the topic. There are legitimate claims of notability. This is the first film about the culture of the Roman Catholic East Indians and the first filmed in their own dialect. There is no basis in policy for insisting on four or five sources. I see no evidence that the Times of India coverage is a simple reprint of a press release. This Daily News and Analysis source is very good, and provides a different perspective on the film. It should be transformed from an external link into a reference. Instead of being deleted, the article should be expanded and improved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is of course possible to be disruptive when it comes to article creation, but the relevant issue here (as pointed out in the nomination) is notability. The article now shows borderline notability at best; we have no actual reliable sources showing that it is the first film in East Indian Marathi (the director claims that it is in newspaper interviews but secondary sources for that kind of claim would have been useful - I might be a bit picky about this because of my profession, but that's my opinion and interpretation of WP:RS anyway). The large audience numbers might be a stronger claim to notability; it would be good to get people who are more knowledgeable about Indian films to weigh in here. I also don't agree that the DNA India source is very good as far as coverage of the film goes - I had the same reaction when I first saw it, but then I realised that Tu Maza Jeev is only mentioned in passing. --bonadea contributions talk 15:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

_{Replying to the comment above} :- @Bonadea:I am extremely sure that you are not an Indian citizen, here I belong to the same community that this film is released and I have cited as many as available resources for the film u want I can send u the movie personally so that u can believe. India has 1652 languages and all have equal status according to the law and by commenting disputes u do against article 14 , 15 , 16, 21 , 25 of the Indian Constitution . By contesting u breach my Freedom of expression in India right. The film has been proved to exist as it has been on IMDB and I have seen many articles which have only one source and it has no deletion tag on it for eg Mother Teresa of Calcutta (film). My article has existence in real life and my community has witnessed it. The film had no objection on the Marathi Wikipedia and it was there created by an administrator there Mr:तू माझा जीव. My sincere request for you is please don't waste wikipedias time to tag it for deletion as it is baseless.As there is no mention that A local language film needs to prove notability --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 04:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that it would be helpful if we had a better source claiming that this particular film was the first one to be filmed in a specific dialect does is not in any way a comment on the existence of the dialect. I have looked it up, I know that it is an existing varity of Marathi (or, according to some, Konkani). The nationality of any of the people involved in a discussion is wholly irrelevant, and Wikipedia versions in different languages have different notability policies. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 08:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: the main problem rises that Wikipedia doesn't has the article on East Indian language I have asked an administrator about the same if he permits I'll have an article on East Indian language so it will have no doubt in the dialect u want to know. For your reference u have a look at this article and let all your doubt gets clear and u too give a green signal for my article this Christmas season 😀👍

No, the existence of this article about a movie is completely unconnected to whether East Indian Marathi exists as a separate dialect. A well-sourced article about the dialect would be excellent - as I have already said I am fully aware of its existence, and I would be happy to assist you with better sources, since the one you linked to here does not meet Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and should not be used as a source in Wikipedia. But again that has nothing to do with the article Tu Maza Jeev. Finally, I don't decide whether any article stays or remains. The way Wikipedia deletion discussions work is like this: One editor decides to nominate an article for deletion, and provides their reasons. Other editors weigh in and agree or disagree, based on Wikipedia policy. The administrator who closes the discussion does so in accordance with the consensus in the discussion, without adding their own opinion. --bonadea contributions talk 13:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly a notable subject and needed just a little more references which have been included.

It will be a net gain!Mahveotm (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Wheeler (audio/video technologist)

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

Can find little to no significant, independent coverage. May not meet WP:NBIO. I think WP:ENTERTAINER criterion 1 also doesn't apply here, but interested to hear the opinions of others. Ajpolino (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a few online searches, from which I verified that did found Penteo, but little else. I found lots of random websites that cite him, but literally not a single news story about him. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – John Wheeler has nothing to do with Penteo Corporation since 2010 and keeps making multiple false claims about his involvement in the business.

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 The_Anubis_Tapestry#Film_adaptation. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anubis (film)

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

Was deprodded without rationale. Uncited article, which appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet WP:FILM Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I initially thought that this was a hoax, but Variety did report on the books getting optioned. There's also this bit from 2014, which looks to be a press release. However other than that, there's nothing out there to show that this project is really active. Now as far as the cast list goes, that seems to be a hoax, as I can't find anything to show that any of these actors have been signed to the film. Some of them are very well known people (James Franco, Guillermo del Toro) and others are pretty well known otherwise, so it's really unlikely that there would be no coverage of them signing to a film. I mean, del Toro commands a great deal of press based only on whispers, after all. I think that this is at best WP:TOOSOON. This could probably be sent to draft or userspace if someone wanted to incubate it for a while, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blue Sky Studios#Upcoming - I added references and removed trivia. However, it has not received any coverage since 2013. The cast seems entirely speculative or was added by someone with inside info - there is no coverage whatsoever about who is starring, and these are some big names. It's certainly a notable film backed by big studios, but too soon. It remains a plausible search term. Once it's updated the article can be resurrected from the redirect. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if we are going to redirect anywhere surely it should be The_Anubis_Tapestry#Film_adaptation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Anubis_Tapestry#Film_adaptation as pointed out. There's nearly as much information there already as in our article, missing just the distributor (parent company of the studio) and the date change. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Anubis_Tapestry#Film_adaptation. If the film becomes notable in itself upon distribution, it can be recreated and anything in the page history is preserved. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mami (2012 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM, as tagged by Marchjuly in January 2016. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 19:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable film as per [[WP:NFILM], barely any sources. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFSOURCES...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2016 (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

Template:Tfdl2