Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Jump to: navigation, search

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

Points of interest related to Film on Wikipedia:
Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – To-do

Shortcut: WP:FILMDEL

Deletion Sorting
Project

Project page	(talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)

AfD: Today, Yesterday

edit · changes

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. 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.
Please indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Film.

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.

Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film/archive.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

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

[edit] Film

[edit] The Deserter (1912 film)

(Find sources: "The Deserter (1912 film)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep Thomas H. Ince was one of the most important figures in early cinema history and the film also stars Francis Ford, again an important figure in early cinema. The film was screened in 2006 as part of a retrospective on Ince at the MoMA, so this passes point 2 of Wikipedia:NF#Other_evidence_of_notability ("The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.") Difficult to find sources, but not impossible, for a film from one hundred years ago. I'm sure there are press reviews from that time too. Lugnuts (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Seems to me this all goes to the notability of Ince and possibly Ford, but not to the film itself. Also, the screening of the film at a museum exhibition as part of a retrospective on Ince is not really a screening at a festival. I don't see sufficient notability for a separate article, although I do agree that with silent films it's much harder to find sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Deleting verified material about an extant Ince film from 1912 can't possibly improve our coverage of silent films. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep Per Lugnuts. Edison (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Given that very few productions from the Silent Era exist, I would argue that extant works are automatically notable. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep: It is at the Library of Congress. Here is a paragraph which is a review that states that it is one of his few surviving films. SL93 (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Even with the first reference, it passes "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.". SL93 (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- 1912 review snippets. SL93 (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. I'll withdraw the nomination. Anyone who feels comfortable closing the AfD, either as an administrator or as a non-administrative closure, feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] International Quorum of Motion Picture Producers

(Find sources: "International Quorum of Motion Picture Producers" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Not sufficiently sourced with independent sources. The only independent sources simply include a member of this organization (and a film company executive) as a judge at a film festival. Along with Condor Films, this article has one substantial editor - this appears to be a marketing effort of some sort with no third-party substantiation. -- a kendall 14:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cautious delete - Based on what has been provided and what I can find, the article should be deleted. However, an organisation established in 1966, which has a role in deciding winners of certain film festivals, may be notable. There may well be sources that would establish notability which I have simply not found. However, without any reliable sources, there is nothing to make this inherently notable, so my vote is delete until then. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep WP:notability not established in the article, but ability to meet wp:notability looks likely. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Fun Size

(Find sources: "Fun Size" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No references, violates WP:CRYSTAL, and barely any context. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

~~Keep.~~ The movie's IMDB listing notes that the film is in post-production, which is well within acceptability per WP:NFF. In addition, a simple Google search for "Fun Size" yielded numerous sources which can substantiate information in the article. Remember that a lack of content is not grounds for deletion. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing my vote to delete. The admittedly only cursory look for sources I discovered focus more on the director and Paramount's "betting" on his films than "Fun Size" itself. Given that this movie only receives a passing mention in all of the sources I found, it at present fails the "significant coverage" and/or "presumed" sections of the WP:GNG. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL and the lack of sources. Films get articles if/when they become notable, not before. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Come back when the film has been released. JIP | Talk 06:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Vote withdrawn because of withdrawal of nomination. JIP | Talk 18:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but for anyone to say there are no sources is unfortunate, as there are plenty available. Further, and in regards sourcing and cries of crystal being violated... the film has entered principle filming, this is being reported, and per policy and it is appropriate to discuss the project per that extensive coverage. The brand new article was sent to AFD just 40 minutes after the last edit by its newcomer author,[1] and it took only a few minutes to begin expansion and sourcing of the stub to make it a decent little start class article.[2] As this film's production has been receiving coverage ever since its director was announced in January 2011, and continues to receive coverage now that it is being filmed in Cleveland, we have the topic meeting WP:GNG. Far better to build the article on a notable topic than it is to delete it. Had this been written last year, I would likely have opined otherwise. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(Find sources: "Fun Size, Josh Schwartz" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

(Find sources: "Fun Size, Stephanie Savage" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

(Find sources: "Fun Size, Max Werner" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

(Find sources: "Fun Size, Paramount" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

(Find sources: "Fun Size, Jane Levy " – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

(Find sources: "Fun Size, Victoria Justice" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

(Find sources: "Fun Size, Thomas McDonell" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

(Find sources: "Fun Size, Chelsea Handler" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

(Find sources: "Fun Size, Johnny Knoxville" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

(Find sources: "Fun Size, Josh Pence" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

deltionist keep cast and in post production, so passes WP:NFF and has significant coverage. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Always happy when a died-in-the-wool deletionist acknowledges that concerns have been addressed. Thanks.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm gonna withdraw the nom on this one, plenty of sources to pass WP:NFF at this point. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 02:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Appreciations for the withdrawal. It was fun to improve this one.... and I expect we'll have even more coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Killing Season (film)

(Find sources: "Killing Season (film)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

It is WP:TOOSOON for this film to have an article. BOVINEBOY2008 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - WP:TOOSOON for a separate article. Possibly incorporate a mention into the director's page as an "upcoming project" if it starts to get actual news coverage.Tyrenon (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Only add a mention to the director's page if a reliable source can be found for it. SL93 (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Per WP:GNG The film is in production in Atlanta, GA and there are multiple news articles verifying the existence of this film. External link has been provided as well. Coutrystrong (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep per policy on furure events and meeting WP:GNG and thus passing WP:NFF. Considering the coverage surrounding the film and its principles, this one is a close call... and could be seen as one of those allowable exceptions to WP:NFF. Or perhaps as a weak second choice, Redirect for a short while to Mark Steven Johnson where per policy this film can be spoken of and sourced in contect to that director's career. If redirected, we can undo the redirect when we have just a little more. Its a close call. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Funny

(Find sources: "Dead Funny" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The independent film from 1995 has only been released in VHS, and does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's guideline for movies. Edison (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I found some reviews from Variety, NYT, and such. This makes it pass the bare rock bottom minimum for WP:NFILM, I think.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep Multiple reviews, from major publications, meet WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Slime Blower

(Find sources: "Slime Blower" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:N. Article is about a prop from a movie that makes trivial appearances in later video games. Article is essentially unsourced, except for one link to ghostbusters.com. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge Almost totally original research, and does not meet notability guideline. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Entirely without reliable sources for verifiability and notability; what plot is here can be incorporated into Ghostbusters II and Ghostbusters: The Video Game if needed there. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] How to Be Indie: The Movie

(Find sources: "How to Be Indie: The Movie" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

An IP editor posted the AFD tag on this article. When I went to remove it, I checked for references and supporting sources that would show that the subject was notable - and could find no sources of any kind to support the existance of this film. I can find the facebook page, and this article, but there are no news hits at all. The cast does not appear to have a film of this title listed in their credits at imdb (which, I know, isn't a RS as such, but they're usually on the ball about such things). There's no coverage of the premiere, which according to the article already took place. If the film were scheduled for a May 2012 release (and was complete enough to have had a premiere), surely something would be available somewhere? It's possible this is a case of WP:CRYSTAL and the article is just premature, but I'm skeptical at best. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - this is a WP:CRYSTAL case at best, and possibly a hoax. Either way, if there aren't any sources, we shouldn't have an article on it yet. Robofish (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL applies here, particularly given the "rumors" at the bottom. Not that such rumors don't occasionally pan out. A reference on the show's main page to a possible movie would be more than sufficient until such time as a release/airing is formally announced.Tyrenon (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete: Likely hoax. SL93 (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Agree with the nominator. The article asserts coverage at the YTV website, but I could not find any. It asserts having a premier in Toronto, but I could not verify this. Even if not a hoax, the lack of coverage for this film makes this article WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NF and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as a crystal ball exercise, at best. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete and snow close. There's nothing out there about this movie. Considering that it's supposedly rumored to have some pretty well known stars in them, you'd think that it'd have at least a few news articles discussing said rumors. Not only that, but for it to be releasing soon, it'd have press releases out there as well. Even if it isn't a hoax or a rumor, it's just too soon to have this posted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Delete Likely a Hoax, even if its not there lack of coverage to verify it or write an article. Toasted (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Inside Job (detailed synopsis)

(Find sources: "Inside Job (detailed synopsis)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:GNG. This detailed "synopsis" of the film is an end run around a discussion on the film's Talk page a while ago about the length of the plot. The consensus was that the film's plot, just like any other film, had to stay within guidelines WP:FILMPLOT, although it actually still exceeds guidelines a bit. The editors who wanted a more detailed plot really wanted to use the film article as leverage to discuss the film's subject matter. In case anyone is curious, the word count for the "detailed" plot article is 1,565, and the word count for the film article's plot is 751. Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Pure original research and a violation of WP:NOTPLOT created after the material was cut (according to policy and consensus) from Inside Job (film). I'll assume good faith and guess that this is a result of an anonymous user deciding to register an account and not yet being familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per above. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - This is an inappropriate content fork. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Him Ganga Hum

(Find sources: "Him Ganga Hum" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable documentary. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Creating Rem Lezar

(Find sources: "Creating Rem Lezar" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

It seems to exist, but that is all one can say about it. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notabbility. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep - The article makes a case for notability based on the "viral" popularity of the video. A google search reveals a lot of blogs about it. Most of them are probably not reliable sources, but they are clearly independent of the creators Puddytang (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment' - That just means it is a passing fancy. Tons of things have a temporry blip of popularity, but that doesn't denote notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Blogs are not reliable sources unless they are written by reputable people. I see nothing but unreliable sources. No hits on Gnews, only directory listings on Gbooks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of films featured in ''A Story of Film: An Odyssey''

(Find sources: "List of films featured in A Story of Film: An Odyssey" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Main article is a redlink, PROD denied —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see much use in a list of films featured in a single documentary series if the documentary itself doesn't merit an article. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. It's indeed odd that this megalist has been created without a companion article about the documentary itself, but in fact Mark Cousins' The Story of Film is an important and massive series that unquestionably deserves its own article: The Telegraph headlined it as "cinematic event of the year"[3], an Irish Times writer called it a "landmark" (albeit a "bizarrely underpromoted" one)[4], etc.[5][6] Whether a complete list of all the film clips in that documentary is an appropriate part of Wikipedia's coverage, I'm not so sure.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep As the creator, I should have created the article on the Story of Film at the same time. As the series will Yes this list merits to be preserved until someone writes the article on the Story of cinema, an odyssey. Excuse me if it does not belong in Wikipedia however. This Story of cinema is such a great great teaching about cinema and the list is very useful to those who wish to learn more by watching again or for the first time the movies mentioned in the Story of Film please please do not delete I hve no time to write more now. Maria Elvira Pousa become recognized over time, this list shall merit its keep. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - See WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Yes, it's an essay, but the argument is laid out quite well. As for keeping or deleting this list, I'm still undecided. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete since the parent doesn't have an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Even if the article about the parent series existed, that would not necessarily justify having a separate article with the list of films featured therein. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Updated comment. Since no one else took up the challenge, I've started an article for The Story of Film: An Odyssey. Described by multiple reviewers as a landmark, it clearly deserves an article. I'm still not convinced that the long list at issue here, itemizing every film discussed in the 15 hours of the series, is an appropriate part of Wikipedia's coverage. On the other hand, maybe the shorter list of episode titles should be included. So maybe we should merge some limited parts of List of films featured in ''A Story of Film: An Odyssey'' into the new article The Story of Film: An Odyssey?--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2012‎ (UTC)
merge the entire list into the new article. As it's a finite list, it could be handled better there, in two columns. If the program is a landmark, the list of films it covers is a good checklist of importance for the films--it's like the list of films preserved by the LoC. I note some of the films included do not yet have Wikipedia articles. This list gives sufficient warrant for making those articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

(Find sources: "Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:GNG/WP:FILM absent significant coverage in reliable sources. Don't let the number of GNews hits fool you - they're almost exclusively WP:ROUTINE announcements of scheduled screenings, not reviews or discussion. What we have of discussion is a eight-sentence brief in the Jerusalem Post and a couple of one- or three-sentence mentions elsewhere. Was kept at AfD a few years ago, but editors then were (let's be generous) misled about the nature of the many sources which are actually community announcements. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep. If nothing else is to be added in this discussion to further strengthen the film's notability, suffice it to say that at least two of the sources listed in the first debate satisfy WP:GNG's requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; those sources are Miami Herald and Jewish Journal. Both sources are reliable per WP:RS and independent of the subject. The coverage in the sources is significant per GNG's definition of "significant": "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content"; each article mentions more than just the screening information, it addresses the subject in detail. If it seems that either of those two sources, or any other ones for that matter, do not speak of the film as the main topic, GNG also specifically states that "significant" coverage does not require the subject matter to "be the main topic of the source material". Further, the information in both articles is stated explicitly so that WP:OR is not violated. In my opinion, the first debate addressed the issue of notability in a permanent manner and this re-hashing of almost identical arguments is somewhat unnecessary and really presents nothing new regarding the issue. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Dude, a 400-word (which includes the street address and all the sponsoring organizations) announcement, possibly paid for, of a scheduled screening (Miami Herald) is not significant coverage, nor is a couple of sentences in a long article (Jewish Chronicle). You must have forgotten to quote the part of GNG which says that significant coverage must be more than trivial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
"Significant" in everyday vernacular English ≠ "significant" as described by GNG. The statement to which you refer ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.") still, in my opinion, easily describes the coverage provided by the two sources. I'll admit I may be wrong in my interpretation. However, this was all covered in the first nomination and I think that a second nomination for deletion, when the result of the first one was "keep", really should present new arguments in order to be successful. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- - - As I said, I think a lot of the keep votes cited routine coverage, which policy specifically exempts from demonstrating notability. "Previous keep voters were misled about admissibility of the sources their !votes relied on" isn't an invalid argument. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to HonestReporting. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep. In addition to the two sources mentioned in Big Bird's well argued comment to keep (Miami Herald and Jewish Journal), a third reliable source providing significant coverage is a 2003 review in the Jerusalem Post (convenience link here: [7]), where the film is the focus of the entire review. A fourth is the detailed review already used in the article, from the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, [8], and I've just added a 5th, from 'J' - the Jewish news weekly of Northern California [9]. The nominator uses very misleading language in describing the coverage of the Jewish Chronicle as 'a couple of sentences' - that sources dedicates its 4 opening paragraphs to the subject. The claim that a 422-word review (Miami Herald) would be too short to qualify as significant coverage, if due to length alone, is laughable. I don't have access to the full article, perhaps the nominator who apparently has such access can share a link or e-mail the full content so we can better judge the rest. Jeff Song (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- As I've already stated, the problem with the Miami Herald source is that it's a WP:ROUTINE announcement, which policy specifically states cannot be used as the basis for an article and which may be a paid listing. It's also pretty misleading of you to say that the Jewish Journal review devotes four entire paragraphs to the film when the paragraphs are one or two sentences long. Trivial coverage is trivial. I already mentioned the JPost review, but even if it weren't about as short as a piece can get and still be on the borderline of "significant," one source won't support an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  - I disagree that it is a routine announcement, esp. if it is more than 400 words long. Can you share the full text so we can judge? Trivial coverage is defined as routine announcement about showing times and the like. Four paragraphs in an article about mid-east documentaries is not trivial coverage, even if those paragraphs are short. Jeff Song (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    - How many times do I have to cite WP:ROUTINE before someone will go and read it? Planned coverage of scheduled events and announcements cannot support an article. I'll see if I can post the full text later. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
      - we don't know if the article is just an announcement about a planned screening, and I seriously doubt if that's the case when we're talking about a 420 word article. Please provide the full text so we can judge. In any case, it is one of 5 articles with significant coverage. Jeff Song (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
        
        The fact that it begins with the announcement that the film will be screened at such and such an address, cosponsored by X, Y, and Z, isn't obviously an announcement to you? And again, all but two of the sources you're citing are WP:ROUTINE coverage of events which is specifically exempt from admissibility, and one of those two is trivial. It may be popular, based on the announcements, but popularity is not enough for an article - we need significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
        
        I typically try to withhold judgment on the contents of a 422 word article when all I can see are first 80. You obviously have different standards. I'll ask again, (third time now, by my count) that you let us in on the rest of the article, so that we can judge (assuming of course, that you read the rest. You did, didn't you?). And no, none of the other 4 articles ([10],[11],[12],[13]) are anywhere near WP:ROUTINE coverage. That you would think that leads me to believe that it is you who has not read that guideline, or has not understood it. Jeff Song (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the guideline which explicitly states that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements...are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." I don't know what fictional guideline you're reading. Here's the Miami Herald:

Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in Israel, an hour-long documentary on the Middle East conflict, will be shown at 7:30 p.m. Monday at Temple Sinai of Hollywood, 1400 N. 46th Ave., Hollywood. The evening is being co-sponsored by Aish of South Florida, Young Israel of Hollywood, and Temple Sinai of Hollywood. The film uses video clips to focus on the history of the Middle East conflict and show how the peace process unraveled into a surge of violence. The movie was produced by Discovery Production and is not rated. Due to some graphic footage of recent violence in Israel, recommended for viewers 18 and older. Admission costs $5. For tickets, call 888-883-4726 or order online at www.discoveryproduction.com.

The rest of the 422 words are an announcement for something else - a screening of a film called A Price Above Rubies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The Miami Herald is clearly routine, and can be excluded from further discussions. The other 4 are not. Jeff Song (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to believe that "planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it" is not routine coverage, but I'm afraid WP:ROUTINE disagrees with you there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to believe that this, a post-screening, highly critical review of the film (calls it "one sided" "propaganda"), constitutes "planned coverage of pre-scheduled events", coming from "those involved in the event" who "are also promoting it" - and I will draw that inescapable conclusions about your reading comprehension skills. Jeff Song (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you read that article very thoroughly - it's not critical at all and is, again, coverage of an event rather than of the film. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It dedicates 5 paragraphs to the film, not the event, and describes it as follows "Even those most ardently pro-Israel would concede "Relentless" is a work of propaganda: sincere and gripping, but propaganda nonetheless. " - if you think this is "not critical at all" - well, you reconfirm my conclusions about your reading comprehension skills. Jeff Song (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to believe whatever unsupported things you want; it's a free country. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep I am not familiar with the history of this article, but I see it was moved in 2007, so I guess it has been around for a many years. Not sure why many Wikipedians are actively working to remove so many notable, verifyable, etc, articles, that have survived on Wikipedia for years? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please see WP:LONGTIME. Article age is not an argument for keeping it, and the fact that it isn't notable is exactly why it's being nominated for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  - I notice that you recently targetted for deletion several articles started by User talk:CltFn, including this particular article - I wonder why that is? Ottawahitech (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    - I have Twinkle, which automatically notifies the creators of articles I propose or nominate for deletion, and when I noticed that a number of the articles I'd proposed/nominated recently were by the same user, I began to wonder how many other non-notable fringe subjects the user had created articles on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      - It is good that those who started articles are notified, but I still don't see the point of spending time here in deletion discussions about borderline articles. Surely there are more important things to do at Wikipedia, such as whittling down the humungous piles of stub articles, building categories, and much, much more?
        
        LOL, I do enormous amounts of categorization work, but how is this relevant? We're having a deletion discussion now. Let's discuss the article, rather than dancing around with all this meta-reasoning about how we could be doing other things. If you didn't want to participate in the discussion, you didn't have to. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
        
        I did not mean you personally, I meant all the wiki-man-hours spent in AFD discussions. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
        
        If AFD is such a waste, why bother coming here with your keep !vote? AFD is a part of the site governed by processes and rules/guidelines just like any other part of the site; you are not required to come here, but since you're here, please produce something better than "keep because no one should delete anything ever." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
        
        I am not here by choice, but by necessity. Many volunteer Wikipedians have contributed to the article in question - and the effect of your nomination will wipe out their contributions. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
        
        This is true of many AFDs - why is it so important to keep this non-notable film from being deleted? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep per big bird and jeff. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Bihar Degree Dhoka (Hindi Film)

(Find sources: "Bihar Degree Dhoka (Hindi Film)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Contested prod. Unreferenced promotional article for an unproduced and unreleased future film. No article for the filmmaker - film fails WP:MOVIE. Google search on "Bihar Degree Dhoka" shows only 36 unique results, none from reliable sources. Adding the -wiki modifier reduces that to only 12 results. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This can be undeleted or recreated once the film is made and gets coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Roma (character)

(Find sources: "Roma (character)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Unremarkable movie character - no notability outside the films, and no significant coverage found for the individual character. Completely unreferenced. Tried redirecting to the main film article, but page creator kept reverting, so bringing this here for definitive resolution. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservatively merge to Don series, the best location for characters featured in more than one of these films to give an overview of them from the entire series. This kind of merger should almost always be done with fictional characters from notable works or series, and we should handle that through normal editing rather than AFD. Roma (character) should probably redirect to Roma, given that there are multiple fictional characters to which that name could apply.
Note: the nom's description of this as "completely unreferenced" is incorrect (to the extent an article's current state as unreferenced is even relevant here; we are concerned with what is verifiable), as the movies themselves are reliable sources for their own content, provided a description does not veer into interpretive OR. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

But the character is quite important aswell as the male lead which is the character don she is the female lead and has notability outside the film and she has been at events as the character and was notable at every event whether it was awards, conferences, premieres or promotions.2.26.14.49 (talk)— 2.26.14.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I also think that the article should not be deleted it has alot to offer. .Bollywood Fan1 (talk)

Comment - the above comment was added by 2.26.14.49, not Bollywood Fan1 - this appears to be a single editor trying to pretend to be two. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a few comments were made without being signed in. It's a common newcomer oversight. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree that the article is not in good state and does not have even a single source, hence it looks like it should be deleted. But the creator of the article, if he wants the article to stay, then he has to clean it up and make it match Wikipedia's quality standards, along with many reliable sources. If Bollywood Fan 1 refuses to these, I am sorry for his article :-( ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. We don't use deletion processes as an ultimatum like that, and we certainly don't delete articles based on their current state. If the subject belongs in Wikipedia, then it should stay, keeping in mind alternatives to deletion such as merging which don't require compulsive processes anyway but can be done by any editor. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

ok i will clean it up but can you please just leave the article up because i am trying to clean it up and get sources and pictures so please leave it up and i will clean it up Bollywood Fan1

You better do it fast. By the way, sign your posts using 4tildes. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

By "4tildes", he means this: "~~~~" (upper left area of your keyboard). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf Boy

(Find sources: "Wolf Boy" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Is not notable, the film has not even been released yet. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy incubate as per WP:IAR, as notability cannot be assessed at this time. Unscintillating (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Userfy to the userspace of anyone willing to take it. This film may well become notable in the future, but without knowing when it will be released it's hard to assess it yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

Contents

[edit] Film

[edit] The Deserter (1912 film)

[edit] International Quorum of Motion Picture Producers

[edit] Fun Size

[edit] Killing Season (film)

[edit] Dead Funny

[edit] Slime Blower

[edit] How to Be Indie: The Movie

[edit] Inside Job (detailed synopsis)

[edit] Him Ganga Hum

[edit] Creating Rem Lezar

[edit] List of films featured in ''A Story of Film: An Odyssey''

[edit] Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

[edit] Bihar Degree Dhoka (Hindi Film)

[edit] Roma (character)

[edit] Wolf Boy

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

Actions

Search

Navigation

Interaction

Toolbox

Print/export