Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DSFILM)
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.


Purge page cache watch
Scan for Film AfDs

Scan for Film Prods
Scan for Film template TfDs

Related deletion sorting


Film

edit

Cinemax (India)

edit
Cinemax (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:NCORP as a standalone article; sources are all WP:ORGTRIV. Propose to restore a redirect to PVR INOX, which purchased this company. (A merger discussion was inconclusive and editors have contested a subsequent merge and redirect, making an AfD consensus helpful here.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Evening Concert

edit
The Evening Concert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply fails WP:NFILM. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayeye Penhan

edit
Sayeye Penhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM in short. No critical reception whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is about an Iranian film that was recorded in Iran according to the sources available in the article. If the article is lacking in content, it is likely that the user who created it did not have sufficient information and was unable to provide further edits. As you may have noticed, a 'stub' template has been added at the end of the article, indicating that editors are encouraged to help expand the article by adding more information. According to this procedure, the article needs more time to be completed. However, you have placed a deletion template on this article, which goes against the rules of English Wikipedia." 5.233.174.226 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you have no decent sourcing to start with, adding a stub template doesn't really help. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No mentions in RS other than what's given; not seeing notability for this short film. I don't find any sourcing either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A statement is made that is not logical. You say there are no sources, so what are the sources listed in the references section for? This has been officially announced as a certain type of film and has been screened as a cinematic movie in Iran and registered on IMDb. You shouldn't compare this article, which pertains to Iran, with an article related to the United States, because it was created by an editor who has limited knowledge about Iranian cinema, and this will be corrected over time with the help of other editors. Unfortunately, you made a hasty decision to delete this article, which is not logical and violates Wikipedia's rules. This article is still new and was created just a month ago, and a stub template has been added to allow editors to contribute, with credible sources also cited. 5.233.174.226 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article, with its completed information, should remain on English Wikipedia and not be deleted, so that it can be improved and matured by editors.
    Thank you. 5.233.230.102 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to know that a topic is notable enough to merit an article first, instead of creating an article and waiting to see if editors find enough sources. However, the other option is always to set up a draft, which can be improved and moved back into the main article space once it's ready. hinnk (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • to stay: This article is about an Iranian film and is still in the early stages. It should be allowed to be edited. If the article has any issues, please help by editing and improving it rather than deleting the article altogether. With suggested edits from editors, this article can be strengthened, but deleting it would not be productive. This article should remain; otherwise, we would be violating Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff98 (talk • contribs)

On a Bicycle

edit
On a Bicycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply fails WP:NFILM. Nothing to suggest notability. No critical reception from reliable sources whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Destra Corporation

edit
Destra Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this subject passes WP:LISTN. Having a list of works featuring Mickey Mouse, but only versions of him adapted after 1 January 2024 is just very oddly specific. Every single entry on this list could easily be put into List of Mickey Mouse films and appearances. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Video games, Disney, and Lists. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Uncertain on its notability, but I don't see its timeframe or scope as "oddly specific". The date isn't arbitrary. As its title suggests, it's when the copyright ran out so people could use/recreate without potential repercussion. It's a logical classification. I also oppose the merge suggestion. That would be comparable to including fan created unofficial characters to a list of a franchise's real character list. These items don't belong there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am normally very in favor of merging as an WP:ATD, but I agree with Sergecross73 that these works are fundamentally different from the other Mickey Mouse works. Something going public domain is a very clear break in the topic. That is the date where we transition from officially authorized works to unauthorized (because they don't need authorization anymore). I might consider deletion as most of these do not have articles, and some of them are WP:CRYSTAL for works that are not out yet. But I might also weakly consider keeping it, if the non-notable entries are cleaned up. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arguably falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE - the idea of things being made with a newly public domain character is merely a novelty that will eventually fade into irrelevance. All that this means is that the original list should likely be retitled "List of Mickey Mouse Disney media". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not following how it falls into INDISCRIMINATE. It's got a very defined scope and only 14 items on the list. I find it hard to believe its scope would spiral out with a simple "only include items covered by third party reliable sources verify" inclusion criteria set up. As your own words suggest, websites aren't going to cover every single absurd fan creation. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources covering the subject of the list as a set exist. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the copyright act extensions which always seemed to keep Steamboat Willie out of the public domain are a long-running topic. There's certainly a potential to merge to 2024 in American public domain, but that's more properly a merge discussion, rather than something being mandated by AfD. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is distinct from the Disney-owned work, and has been discussed as a set. The fact that the Copyright Term Extension Act was nicknamed the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" indicates that this specific character passing into public domain is noteworthy. I agree that this is a novelty, but a relevant and notable one. Toughpigs (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – significant coverage of the set as a whole. I find it curious that the nominator thinks the set "oddly specific" and the delete !voter opines "Arguably falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE". Such is AFD. Thincat (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is well sourced, and its concept and simple inclusion criteria should keep its scope manageable. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Maybe a very niche trend in media but not more niche then, for instance, Bruceploitation-films where in the 1970s and 1980s. Mickey Mouse lapsing into the public domain had a significant enough effect on media, films and video games. Jonastav89 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The idea may seem niché right now as it hasn't been a full year yet, it won't be however several years from now when a large amount of post-Disney material may have been published. There may also be a need to understand which Mickey Mouse material is still under Disney's control and which isn't. Abradrake (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abradrake see Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTAL Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage and sources; notable. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't fall under INDISCRIMINATE. I'm planning to convert the Mouse (video game) redirect into an article.
  • Keep and retitle to Mickey Mouse in the public domain. This is a notable topic and has already spawned many notable projects. However it could use some work. I think that the article should be made up of largely two portions. The first is a prose type article where it discusses the history of the character going into the public domain, its impact and the challenges against it, and the future of the character in the PD. The second part would be a list of notable media that have been created based on the PD character.
With the list, it needs to be restricted to only those projects that are notable enough for their own article. This would prevent Sally Sue and John Average from adding their non-notable creations or those projects that may have gained 1-2 sources but failed to gain enough coverage to pass GNG.
In the case of things such as Brock's Dub, that can be briefly mentioned in the prose section (like a single sentence) as far as the sections on the impact/challenges go. That's something that gained a bit of coverage but really the only notable aspect of it is that it was challenged after the short went into the public domain. I'll be honest, based on current sourcing in the article neither The Return of Steamboat Willie nor Rubber Hose Rampage are notable enough for their own articles so they should be excluded until they become notable, as should Mickey vs. Winnie. All that we need as far as that info goes is a line that goes something like "After its release into the public domain several people released or announced their intent to create media based on Steamboat Willie." It's not unreasonable to assume that some of these announced projects will die before they are officially released or just never gain any additional coverage upon its release. The Savage Dragon one could probably be included but it would need more explanation as to what the appearance will entail. It could be a substantial role in a single issue (or longer) or it could just be a background character. In the case of the latter that would be worth noting but in the former it would be kind of indiscriminate and not really noteworthy. I just want to avoid this turning into a character-specific rendition of the infamous xkcd "In Popular Culture" comic about wood. Becoming more discriminate now would help reduce the chances of this happening later. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do note that the article says "substantial media attention" but the ones I noted without articles each have approximately 3 sources, most of which are primary or trivial sources. Part of the reason why I would recommend limiting this to ones that pass GNG/NFILM/etc would be to avoid cases where there is a brief flurry of announcement type articles based on press releases but not any substantial long term coverage like say, reviews and the like. Right now we're going to see a lot of projects gain "this was announced" type coverage, which will get copied by other websites depending on whether or not it's a slow news day, but then get solidly ignored after that point. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with many of your points, but it would probably make more sense to have this discussion on the article talk page, rather than this AfD... Toughpigs (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalyam (2022 film)

edit
Mangalyam (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simple fails WP:NFILM. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmam Engey

edit
Dharmam Engey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only two potential RS: Guy is RS, the Dina Thanthi source is only cited to a release date change and that seems to be mostly what they publish about movies from what I have seen (could not find the exact article sourced, insufficient info and from 1972). The other cited sources are variously not about topic (Ragunathan), retail (Mossymart), and a list (151 etc). BEFORE found no further RS. Redirect to the director may be a better alternative than deletion, per Mushy Yank, if this discussion doesn't result in Keep. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sesh Jibon

edit
Sesh Jibon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification and moved back to mainspace without source improvements. Everything falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or is otherwise unreliable. A WP:BEFORE shows a bunch of churnalism based on the announcement of the film and the trainler release, but nothing that could be considered significant coverage. Attempted to DRAFTIFY as an WP:ATD hoping more sources would come out once it is released, but here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "may be considered notable" and "notable" are two different things. This is becoming ad nauseam. Can you point out the sources that show this IS notable? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which references specifically? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dujon Dujonar

edit
Dujon Dujonar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM, without reviews in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG as well, coverage is limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and tabloid coverage disallowed per WP:SBST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be a good choice if I believed that the film might become notable in the future, but I don't. Wikipedia's internal search is much better than it used to be, so without a redirect it will return three lists that include the film and eight biographies of people involved in it. Readers can choose the result(s) they're most interested in.
Delete is the better choice, given that the article was created by a block-evading sockpuppet, and is only ineligible for G5 because it was then extensively edited by someone about whom it was concluded "There's certainly some UPE or meatpuppetry going on", even though they could not be linked by technical evidence to the same sockfarm. (They're currently indefed for advertising and promotion.) --Worldbruce (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, consensus is clearly to remove the article. Will the outcome be to delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - I am swayed by Worldbruce's first argument, that readers could select their preferred article via search, but it seems to me that they could do so just as easily and perhaps with better information structure at the Bangladeshi films list. The list names and links to the notable people involved, which makes it easier to navigate. Any useful or notable information could also be added to the list in 'notes', such as the composer's name in case readers were hooked by the soundtrack. StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Services Public Relations media productions

edit
Inter-Services Public Relations media productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Mention insignificant work. WP:NOT DIRECTORY — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Inter-Services Public Relations selectively: per @Saqib. A directory not discussed together by a reliable source without appropriate list criteria should not be kept. If ISPR was 8000 words long (it is a small fraction of that), WP:SIZESPLIT is possible. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list meets the "information" criterion of WP:LISTPURPOSE, with verifiable information about a specific aspect of the activity of the subject, and it's not appropriate for a merge because it would make the parent article significantly longer and less focused. There's no requirement for each of the individual items to be "significant" or independently notable. It doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NOTDIR (the contents are well-organized, (mostly) verified and include contextual info) so that element of the nomination doesn't apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dclemens1971, WP:LISTPURPOSE Why are you referencing WP:MOS? You should cite a notability related policy or guideline. it's not appropriate for a merge Not all items on this list will be merged; only specific parts will be. There's no requirement for each of the individual items to be "significant" or independently notable Do you have any notability related policies or guidelines that confirm this? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      NLIST cites LISTPURPOSE, so it is connected to a notability guideline and appropriate to cite here. As for the notability of individual list entries, see the second criterion under WP:CSC; there can be valid informational purposes for lists whose individual entries are not notable and I think that’s the case here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8[contribs] 00:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21st Asianet Film Awards

edit
21st Asianet Film Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of many WP:CFORKS for Asianet Film Awards created by now blocked/banned user. Sources I find in a WP:BEFORE are not significant enough to show notability for this segment of the award. The information is also covered in the main pace for Asianet Film Awards so this needs deleted or the information about individual winners on that main page needs removed. CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a list, it is an event. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If only you had opened the link to the guideline you might have had a chance to understand what it says. And, on top of this, your comment is completely absurd. The page uses table format and is about an event. It's not the event itself. But maybe you consider, for example, that BLP pages about actors are the actors themselves and not articles. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. This is about an event with a list of winners. It is not a list article. I am curious how you know if I opened any link or not or why you want to be uncivil. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you indeed open(ed) the link you probably (would have) realise(d) that WP:SPLITLIST does not deal only with "list articles"/"lists" and basically says the same thing as what you yourself say at the end of your rationale, from what I understand of it. You indeed explain that "information is also covered in the main (s)pace for Asianet Film Awards so this needs deleted" (if such is the case, it would seem better to redirect rather than delete, but, anyway), but according to WP:SPLITLIST, it would be even better if one could do as you suggest at the end of the same sentence and edit the page(s), as "the information about individual winners on that main page needs removed."
I don't "want to be uncivil" but, as your latest reply perfectly shows, by the way, your initial reply 1) wasn't actually commenting on anything I had referred to (so I assumed you didn't open the link, and one might even assume you still haven't) 2) offered a completely false and absurd dichotomy, on which I commented with a humorous similar dichotomy, obviously not seriously implying that you do really believe that actors are pages. I apologise if you thought I was saying this seriously and if indeed you have opened the page but did not see it was not dealing with lists only. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Just a note that your humor does not come across as humor. It comes across as advertorial which takes away from my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. But again, I understand now based on your explanation. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 31 July 2024 (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, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Asianet Film Awards: A notable event requires wp:INDEPTH coverage that preferably lasts. The criteria is not quite achieved through "Winners Lists" on a few niche websites published only in the year of the ceremony. @Mushy Yank, it seems the other ones in the category have varied coverage. Such as https://www.indiantelevision.com/television/tv-channels/regional/asianet-ropes-in-11-sponsors-for-17th-aisanet-film-awards-150122 for the 17th one. It doesn’t look like the 21st does. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there any support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't merge. The target article already has the winners for the awards listed, so there's nothing to merge that would fit there. Nominees who did not win aren't listed for any of the years of any of the awards on the target page. -- asilvering (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify This meets WP:LISTCRIT, but needs adequate sourcing. Do not merge because having each award year-by-year is a different and valuable way of presenting information, rather than by award as the main list does. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

edit

Categories

edit

Templates

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Film&oldid=1241539919"