Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Heyitsme22 (talk | contribs) at 13:10, 7 June 2011 (→Film). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
![]() | 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: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Style – To-do |
![]() |
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:
- 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.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
Purge page cache | watch |
- Related deletion sorting
- Actors and filmmakers; Anime and manga; Comics and animation; Fictional characters; Television
![]() |
{{{linktext}}}
|
![]() |
{{{linktext}}}
|
![]() |
{{{linktext}}}
|
|}
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 snow keep. BencherliteTalk 08:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The sequel section on the page for the first film is the exact same text, word for word, of this page. It should be merged with it for now. As more information about the film is available, we may need to restore it but until then, I suggest deletion. Heyitsme22 (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - obviously I should declare an interest here, I have been heavily involved in both articles, however, I should stress that I firmly feel the time has now arrived where it is suitable to have a separate article for the sequel, as the sequel has recieved a great deal of standalone news coverage in reliable sources (including The Guardian and Daily Mail) due to the banning of the film in the UK by the BBFC. Whilst I admit that when first creating the sequel article I copied and pasted bits from the first article to get things started, the sequel article now expands on the content in the first films article to an extent that would not be appropriate to include in full on the article about the first film. Interested editors should compare The Human Centipede (First Sequence)#Sequel and The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence). Regards Coolug (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article surely has enough good information to keep, no? LowSelfEstidle (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Heyitsme22 (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is highly unusual for the BBFC to refuse to classify a film, and in this case the Board's reason (that it would be wrong to give a classification to a film that might contravene the Obscene Publications Act) gives this film a significance that merits its own entry. Historical notability is a prima facie criterion for Notability in Film. Sordel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep In its current form, there is plenty difference from the original article. I'm usually quick to go with WP:CRYSTAL on unreleased films etc, but that just doesn't apply here. It has more than enough coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep First banned film in the UK for a long while. Clearly notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sequel is highly notable in its own right. Pointless, perhaps; a waste of celluloid, probably; but still notable. bobrayner (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Apart from being part of a controversial and relatively well-known film trilogy, the BBFC's decision to not grade it makes it especially notable. To address the original reason for the deletion, as of 07.06.11 the comment no longer is relavant as the content is distinct. P.Marlow (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What we need to do is expand this article to ensure its plot - and its cultural impact (RE: BBFC decision etc) are featured. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete I'm a rebel. - Drlight11 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Banned films are common, e.g. Grotesque (2009 film). Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.31 (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - wrong. Only 4 are banned in the UK at present 129.11.77.198 (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - first banned film in the UK for a very long time. Sick yes, notable yes.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable - sequel to a very notable movie and banned in the UK. Dibs on front! 86.41.42.129 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - notable due to UK ban coverage. hope they show it publically, would be nice to see something push the obscene pubs. act back into its outdated box 129.11.77.198 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whether or not it's banned is tangential to whether or not we should have an article on the subject. It would be helpful to frame keeps and opposes in terms of wikipedia policy, or the deletion nomination itself. bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 'fraid not, it's the ban which has made it notable as per Wikipedia:Notability. 'Significant coverage' - check, BBC radio, the Independent and the Guardian already, 'Reliable' - check, 'Sources' -plenty of 2ndary sources, 'Independent' - check, 'Presumed' - ticks all of the caveats on 'What Wikipedia is not'. That it is only the 11th film banned in Britain in 98 years of the BBFC - and every other film has a page here - also ticks the presumption box. 129.11.77.198 (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The fact that it is one of only four films currently banned in the UK makes it notable right there. The reason given in the nomination—that it's the same as a section in a different article—is a silly reason. It will be edited more as time goes on.—Chowbok ☠ 00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Wikipedia:Notability, I came to the article from a CNN piece on the UK banning. If it is the content in dispute for being too similar to the original film's entry, then the article needs works. It has no reflection the importance of keeping the article. --DizFreak talk Contributions 01:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of independent coverage of this already. Lugnuts (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I have nominated this article for "Did You Know" so would it be possible for a decision to be made about this article sooner rather than later? There seem to be plenty of comments, if the article is to be deleted could we get on with it and delete it, otherwise can we close this discussion? I should stress that an anonymous IP user did remove the banner from the article, but I have replaced it as I don't think wikipedia policy would have allowed that. Incidentally, over 30 thousand people viewed the article yesterday, I don't know how that deletion banner makes wikipedia look to these users. Coolug (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2011 (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of 2009 box office number-one films in Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no sources listed and none found to verify the authenticity or accuracy of this list. It was deprodded with claims of notability and because similar lists exist, yet lists like this aren't subject to notability but they are subject to verifiability. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I searched for any sources (in an attempt to save the article) out there and came up fruitless. If there are no sources to be found, then it probably is not reliable as encyclopedic content. Dusty777 (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added a note on the Film Project talkpage for any help with this. Lugnuts (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Looks like the content came from Box Office Mojo. I'm not familiar with lists, but I think that a list like this for the United States is notable because there's often explanatory text for every weekend. I don't think that there is such text for this topic in a country like Argentina, and it seems more like unencyclopedic statistics. However, the United States lists are lacking explanatory text in the Wikipedia lists themselves, and such text should be added to show that these lists are warranted for that country. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Temporary Keep – This list can easily be sourced through mojo so I suggest we add the source and close this particular discussion. That said I think we need to discuss this family of articles, because I'm not sure if there is much encyclopedic value in such lists. One possibililty would be to take a more structured approach and have an article on "national cinema" for each year, and merge articles such as this one with List of Argentine films of 2009, along with a top 10 annual box office chart etc. Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 00:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "a list of films which have placed number one at the weekend box office" - I just don't see the encyclopaedic value in this - why just the weekend? Why not the whole week? Indeed, each of the dates happen to be Sundays? If this was a list of the highest grossing films in 2009 (and for all I know such a list may exist) then that would have some point. As it is, it is just insubstantial fluff. TerriersFan (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Marx Reloaded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This film does not appear to be particularly notable. WCityMike 18:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since it has not yet been released in the US, English-language reviews are not readily available. However, as it appears to have been the recipient of critical commentary in German-language sources independent of the subject, I would have to assess that notable in Germany, is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I find it quite bizarre that it's even nominated. I shall now add further evidence of its notability in terms which suit the specific requirements of English wikipedia. But, once again, bizarre. And a waste of everyone's time. Rachel0898 (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I note that for what has been flagged as a non-notable film the Marx Reloaded page has generated 5890 views [1] in the last 30 days. Arguably a high number given I can find no additional information about an English-language release date. Further, although it's hardly comparing like with like - especially since the following film is over ten years old - Spider (film), a UK English-language feature film with a notable, even cult director attached, and which was released in cinemas worldwide, generated 8912 hits in the last 30 days. Rachel0898 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 00:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability has been established by the sources. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP: crazy that this has been considered for deletion: an entry for an actually-existing documentary film that has already been broadcast in france and germany, which takes a serious look at the 'global financial crisis' we all purport to be be so interested in, which presents the view of a raft of well known theorists about this crisis, which drags marx, trotsky and lenin into the modern 'matrix' and which has already generated a substantial amount of english-language discussion online ahead of a release in the UK; all in all pretty relevant for a free encyclopedia. Muzzafrabad 11 June 2011 --Muzzafrabad (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - a well written and resourced entry on a serious topic - a genuine keeper. MarkDask 23:31, 11 June 2011 (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 userfied - needs some coverage before this can be hosted in mainspace. Spartaz Humbug! 17:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lucifer's Unholy Desire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Film is in development and not yet filming. Fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This film is fully completed, having debuted at the Pittsburgh Horror Film Festival on June 3, 2011 as indicated in the article and supported in the reference. Cind.amuse 17:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (orUserfy or Incubate without prejudice for a few months, as the reference indicates that it was the trailer for this film that has screened at the festival and that "post-production is scheduled to be complete as early as this fall".[2] The reference is very decent coverage, but as we have only a trailer and not yet a completed film, and as the production does not have persistent coverage, this one does not quite qualify as a possible exception to WP:NFF. NOTE: It is to be granted that because of the writer and director being Pennsylvania's 48th State House District 2010 Republican nominee, the trailer IS getting a lot of genre attention... and I have added them as sources to the article. Fair is fair. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- If you check the IMDB page, 2 articles have been written on various sites within 1-2 days of screening the trailer at the Pittsburgh, Film Festival. This film was written and directed by a politician who ran for State Rep in Pennsylvania twice. This page is a work in progress and as I have time to edit it and add more things, The notability will show itself. Tearstar (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)*:[reply]
- I did more than just look at the IMDB news links... I searched out more articles myself and added them TO the article as sources when I did cleanup for style and format.[3] I gladly agree that the film's production is "beginning" to get decent coverage, and that more is appearing on an almost daily basis. But what must be acknowledged is that we do not yet have the completed film, only the trailer. We then look to WP:NFF to see how to deal with articles on unreleased films... and then decide if its production has had enough enduring and peristant coverage as unreleased film to merit being one of those rare exceptions to WP:NFF. Today and tomorrow... no. But over the following weeks, quite likely. I also agree that the topic will almost assuredly prove its notability and be warmly accepted by Wikipedia some short while down the road. Just not quite yet. I understand that it is a work-in-progress and respect your wish to continue working on it. But the place to do that for articles which are not quite ready for mainspace would be either a userspace or in the incubator. I have some experience with film article, and I'll be quite happy to assist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you check the IMDB page, 2 articles have been written on various sites within 1-2 days of screening the trailer at the Pittsburgh, Film Festival. This film was written and directed by a politician who ran for State Rep in Pennsylvania twice. This page is a work in progress and as I have time to edit it and add more things, The notability will show itself. Tearstar (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)*:[reply]
- Userfy. I agree with Michael's recommendation and comment above. As soon as we have significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, we can move the article to the mainspace. Best regards, Cind.amuse 00:15, 8 June 2011 (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. joe deckertalk to me 15:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Biswatosh Sinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Completely unreferenced, notability not established nor evident, fails WP:CREATIVE, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: Not even a single reference provided, cannot establish notability at all Tashif (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete this is a biography of a living person with not one reference. Should be immediately deleted per db-a7. WP:BLPPROD says "Unlike standard proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article." The article creator failed to do such and only added yet more unreferenced material. Prods are useless. —Mike Allen 07:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am unable to find any sources as well. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Last Straw (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
We don't make articles on everything that could be made. Right now this is too soon. If released, it might pass the notability guidelines for films, but until then it is all guesses. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this was merely a redirect until an anon IP began glopping information into it. Propose to revert to a redirect to Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Last Straw#Possible film as is standard in these cases. Elizium23 (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would work, but it may need to be protected if this keeps happening. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 20:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a borderline hoax. The creator doesn't even sound sure that this book will turn into a film. I couldn't find any such sources either. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 23:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It was redirected to Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules (film)#Sequel which has one sentence related to a proposed sequel. Bostick said he was "90% sure it would be made". It can easily be created when reliable information about another sequel comes to light. —Mike Allen 07:40, 6 June 2011 (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. Neutralitytalk 05:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the Love of You (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MOVIE. Singularity42 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non notable independent film with no reliable sources. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 21:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete an indpendent film with no coverage in reliable sources which has yet to make its debut. -- Whpq (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. At the very best this one is too soon. Writr/director Tiara Luten has no credits to her name[4] and, while she is found on social networks,[5] neither she or her film(s) have any coverage in reliable sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:48, 3 June 2011 (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 Giver#Adaptations and delete history per consensus. When this begins production the history can be restored. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Giver (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is speculative, bordering on CRYSTAL. While one of the sources used seems to confirm the existence of plans for the movie, that doesn't establish notability. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 12:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTFILM. According to the IMDb, this film is still in development. Future films should not have Wikipedia articles until they start filming. Any number of delays could occur before this production gets in front of the cameras. Due to the inexplicable popularity of the novel, I am sure that this film will be notable if it is made, but right now it is too early to have a Wikipedia article about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NOTFILM, film has not been produced yet, therefore an individual article is not yet warranted. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" (WP:NFF). Guoguo12 (Talk) 20:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Giver#Adaptations per WP:NFF since filming has not begun. This is a project truly in development hell, stuck there since the mid-1990s; it has not ever come close to production. No problem with recreation if filming ever gets underway. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Erik. Monty845 16:32, 9 June 2011 (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 all three. (Good god, an article on a screenplay for a TV show?!) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dominique Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable film maker, fails WP:BIO. Has so far created one low-budget movie, screened once on a festival but not distributed (nearly a year later), and written a script for a pilot for a tv series, which has been selected as a finalist for a large comedy festival. The film received some minimal local attention, the screenplay only got a press release by his own company. Fram (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated: Twisted Seduction (his movie) and Outcall (TV PILOT SCREENPLAY)
- Delete all three. While filmmaker and films "may" one day get coverage enough for a future return, curent searches do not find the coverage require by either WP:BIO or WP:NF to suport the articles. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - non-notable writer and his non-notable projects. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fanboys (2003 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fan film with no evidence of notability, prod declined without explanation Jac16888 Talk 11:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 00:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to pass WP:FILM Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per prior AfD discussions here and here. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The arguments here would not necessarily be accepted now; consensus has changed, and citing GHITs and IMDB can be enough to get one sacrificed to Wiki-Tan now. The consensus here seems to have been mainly delete for Fanboys, with the ones who explicitly mention the movie all citing the previous AFD or asking for a procedural keep. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability and thus fails WP:NOTFILM. The previous AFD someone said "It is a notable fan film", yet there is not one reference in the article. How do we know it's "notable"? —Mike Allen 07:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just gave the article a long-needed cleanup for style and format,[6] and urge that New Zealand and/or Australian Wikipedians with access to hard-copy reviews of the film add the needed sources, as the film may prove to have enough of a cult fanbase to be seen as notable. My own searches were hampered by the fact that this fan film about Starwars seems to have inspired the 2008 film of the same name, and by the fact that the term "fanboys" is spread throughout the internet in multiple other uses, thus making searches even more difficult. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On evidence of IMDb entry the film doesn't appear to have been distributed, and no reviews independent of subject online. In print perhaps? Rachel0898 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed... in print or archives showing its reception when released in 2003. As IMDB is not the king of reliable information, and as the film HAS been released and is available still through youtube and other online sources, we can accept that it has been "distributed" through that medium. And too, the film screened at the Commonwealth Film Festival in Manchester in 2004. Not all films have theatrical release, but that is never a mandate. And again, searches are made more difficult because there was a feature film by this name that first screened in 2008.[7] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please can we get off the fence with this one? Spartaz Humbug! 17:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As much as I would like to keep this film, I am not seeing the sources needed to support an article. As an aside, I would opine that distribution over the internet does not generally satisfy the "widely distributed" criterion of WP:NOTFILM. Nearly anyone can upload a film to YouTube or their own website. It doesn't represent the barriers that getting a theatrical or home video distribution deal do. On the other hand, internet distributed fan videos certainly can be notable if they can demonstrate coverage in reliable sources; I'm just not seeing that coverage here. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - For the record, this one predates YouTube - it was released in 2003, and originally hosted at TheForce.net - if I recall correctly, they didn't host just anything, like YouTube does now - there was a screening process and they were very selective with what they did or didn't host... MikeWazowski (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have been more clear in my comment, because I didn't mean to imply that the history of the film was otherwise than you have described. I am aware that TheForce.net exercises editorial control over films they host, and indeed think that they are good judges of fan film quality. I just don't think that "hosted by TheForce.net" is a realistic notability criterion for Wikipedia purposes. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- O Fantasma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I created this article as the IP address; I cannot speedy delete this article, so I can avoid creator and IP controversies. The article appeared to established the film's notability; however I think, not enough people have become aware of the film anymore. I don't mean to offend the film's targeted audience. In fact, I have been embarassed by my own article that hasn't improved for years. Feel free to comment if you wish. Gh87 (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Are there any notability or verifiability concerns? If we could cite that award I would vote keep for notability as it received a decent award. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I haven't had time to assess notability, but this [8] should verify the Entreveus Award. I couldn't verify the NewFest award nor the two nominations, but I understand that this sort of content is editor-reviewed by IMDB (and the footnote at the awards page [9] seems to confirm that). I will try to look for sources to establish notability later, unless there is some consensus that the awards and nominations are sufficient, in which case this can be considered as a keep !vote - frankieMR (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 00:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 20:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. IMHO, if a film wins an award at a significant international competition, it is notable. Jewishprincess (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's pretty well known too [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] - frankie (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2011 (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.
Categories
- Category:Film directors by century at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Film directors by century (2 March 2010)
Closed discussions
- Category:Anacondas films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 18#Category:Anacondas films (16 May 2009 – 26 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Jewish film and theatre at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Category:Jewish film and theatre (16 May 2009 – 27 May 2009) No Consensus
- Category:Films shot in stereoscopy at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Category:Films shot in stereoscopy (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Science fiction crews in film and television at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#2009 May 16 (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Beethoven films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:The Bourne films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Candyman films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Child's Play at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Class of Nuke 'Em High films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Critters films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Xxx films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 14#Category:Xxx films (14 May 2009 – 26 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:B-movie directors at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 3#Category:B-movie directors (3 January 2009 – 9 January 2009) Deleted
Templates
Proposed deletions
- For future film notifications, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films/Proposed deletions
- Cruel Jaws (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
- Double Target (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
- KZ9 (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
- Porno Holocaust (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
- Rats: Night of Terror (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
- SS Girls (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deprodded
- Sexy Night Report (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
- Strike Commando (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted