Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

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

Shortcut

WP:FILMDEL

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Scan for Film AfDs

Scan for Film Prods
Scan for Film template TfDs

Film

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies, in the event this proves to have been WP:TOOSOON. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon_Napier

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

The person, Gordon Napier, seems to lack notability. As a director, he seems to be unknown outside of Scottish programs for promoting young talent and hasn't yet been recognized (or noted) by the public and the media. All (but one?) sources are publications by film schools or young talent programs.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A NOTYET situation, presumably. I'm not seeing enough for a GNG pass at this point. IMDb fare. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sony Pictures Home Entertainment#Sub-labels. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Pictures Choice Collection

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

Non notable home video range. Fails WP:NOTCATALOG. --wooden superman 16:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sony Pictures Home Entertainment#Sub-labels. Not independently notable, but a plausible search term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Backlot Series

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

Non notable home video range. Fails WP:NOTCATALOG. --wooden superman 16:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't mentioned at Universal Pictures Home Entertainment so I can't support it as a redirect, but that would be the likely target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Universal Pictures Home Entertainment. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Cinema Classics

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

Non notable home video range. Fails WP:NOTCATALOG. --wooden superman 16:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO This is just a marketing campaign for the DVDs. We've had lists like this deleted in the past though my poor old memory can't bring one to mind at the moment - if anyone else does remember perhaps you could add a link to it here. MarnetteD|Talk 17:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases springs to mind. --wooden superman 09:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Universal Pictures Home Entertainment, a page which has problems of its own. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Criterion Collection UK releases

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

Not independently notable. Doesn't add anything that isn't already at List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases other than a UK release date. --wooden superman 13:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is pretty obviously WP:LISTCRUFT. Redundant to List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. It could in principle be merged there, but in that case I don't see a reason why the UK should be singled out. Reyk _YO! 14:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; neutral as to a redirect to List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy Christmas

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

no indication of passing WP:NOTFILM Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The original article was poorly written, sourced, and verified. I have cleaned up the page to include independent and reliable sources, including Variety, awards and nominations for the film, and it's distribution details by notable distributor. The film has been mentioned on multiple major horror film sites including Dread Central, and as of November 28, the film will be available to the public on VOD (video on demand). Amandadoyle543 (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per th eproject meetng WP:N. IE: [1] Hats off to Amandadoyle543 for doing the improvements. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts of the West (1925 film)

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Found no sources establishing notability. This article was previously deprodded. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a pre-internet lost film so web references are scarce. However as it has a notable cast and director it should have had reviews. There is one book reference already in the article. Searching with "Hearts of the West" 1925 film gives more reults such as in Google books. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306. There's coverage in Google Books and the film has a notable cast/crew. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per AFI the film was known as Heart of the West and Heart to the West. A B-movie theatrical release with a name cast whatever the title.Koplimek (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House of the Wolf Man

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

The references just repeat promotional blurbs from the facebook page of the film except for the fangoria article which is a promotional puff piece. I couldn't find a single review from a reliable source online and no articles about the film that had any actual content. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFILM. Comatmebro (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NF. Dread Central, Fangoria, and Bloody Disgusting are acceptable sources for such. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jackals (2017 film)

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

A non notable movie with fan sites and blogs as references. My own independent search didn't yield anything to warrant notability from WP:RS.While the main actor is notable it doesn't necessarily mean the movie is notable too since Notability is not inherited.

The first reference is an announcement about an actor joining the film and nothing about the movie.
The second reference is also an announcement of an actor being part of the movie.
3rd reference is also an announcement with nothing meaningful to state about the movie. TalkMe (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable due to significant coverage from multiple third-party sources. There are four "Top Critics" reviews for the movie on Rotten Tomatoes, and there is nothing wrong with sources that detail a film's development and production. Notability means that reliable third-party sources found a topic worth noting, and there are many instances of that here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:MOS There is a consensus against using the "Top Critics" scores at Rotten Tomatoes.... It also states; The Top Critics" section on Rotten Tomatoes is a smaller sample size and may be statistically inaccurate. TalkMe (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not relevant to this at all. Rotten Tomatoes aggregates a wide range of film critics to calculate their score (and thus for us to report in the Wikipedia article), but the so-called "Top Critics" are the ones that can and should be referenced directly in this Wikipedia article. This is completely separate from whether or not to report the RT score. So we have reviews from Los Angeles Times, The Hollywood Reporter, RogerEbert.com, and the Tribune News Service. Metacritic shows Slant Magazine as another review. There is also a review from Bloody Disgusting, which has precedent to reference. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erik. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KeeP Film notable for reasons mentioned above. The film is currently being played on most OnDemand services such as Charter. It also has received 1000s of ratings on IMDB so people are watching it. In addition, numerous critics have written about the movie both on IMDB and elsewhere. Nottoohackneyed (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds a lot like WP:BIGNUMBER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the arguments for Keep above are fairly weak, I think there's just enough here to be suitable for an article; the overall 'is Wikipedia improved by not having this' answers to 'no'. (Unfortunatly MichaelQSchmidt seems to be on Wikibreak, otherwise I'd toss it in his direction and expect miracles to be worked.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Paranormal Activity (film series). Seems like it's either that or merge, but apparently a bit more discussion is needed for what has to be merged over. I'll leave that for interested editors and the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Activity timeline

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

I'm not entirely sure we need a page specifically for the "timeline" of the Paranormal Activity series. On the main series article the description of the films starts out with "Set in YYYY...", which is quite sufficient for placing everything in the in-world timeline. Other than grammar or style tweaks, I cannot see this page being expanded much over what is currently there, which means that it's largely redundant to what's already been written. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paranormal Activity (film series) since a stand-alone article is unnecessary. Searching about timelines related to these movies, there seems to be third-party source precedent, but anything combining these sources can be done at the film series article itself. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paranormal Activity (film series). This timeline is a combination of in-universe cruft and significant overlap of Paranormal Activity (film series). --Animalparty! (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above, but noting that a timeline presentation format isn't explicit in the target, so it wouldn't hurt to include one. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no reason to keep the redirect, it is currently orphan anyway. Note: the other redirect Paranormal activity timeline would also become unnecessary. —Paleo Neonate – 01:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RGUIDE and WP:CHEAP. the purpose of redirects is to help people find target articles faster. If a redirect can plausibly be of use, and is not harmful or illogical, it's generally kept. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's still the case, but once upon a time it was observed that a redirect takes less server load than deletion does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was not about load, but the implausibility of someone typing "Paranormal Activity timeline" in the search instead of simply "Paranormal Activity" or "Paranormal Activity series"; but it's only an impression. —Paleo Neonate – 04:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Paranormal Activity (film series). Vorbee (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and therefore redirect) to Paranormal Activity (film series) as explained above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haarika & Hassine Creations

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

Non-notable film production company. No CORPDEPTH. Sources are not reliable and there is trivial coverage of the production company which is not sufficient to establish notability. Promotional page created by a Sock User:Srinivastarun. FITINDIA 10:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advert and violation of our WP:TOU, a clear and well documented case of WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:COI violations that the article should be WP:TNTed to deter such behavior in the future. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly intended as promotion. There's probably a notable topic here, but this article is not it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mayurakshi

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

No indication of WP:NOTFILM. User with a history of WP:PROMO Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails FILM. Quis separabit? 08:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [2][3] D4iNa4 (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @MichaelQSchmidt: WP:NFF indicates that certain films should NOT have articles... It doesn't indicate anything about articles that should have articles. Just because it has commenced filming doesn't make it notable. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No topic is ever guaranteed an article, but any film may merit an article if it has coverage to meet WP:GNG, no matter where it originates. What WP:NFF explains is that IF a film has begun principle photography AND has coverage, an article my be considered. If you disagree with application of policy and guideline, you are welcome to seek opinions from other Admins.. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Rich

AfDs for this article:

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

Unclear if this should have passed the first nomination, which was poorly attended. Article has been under promotional pressure for a long time and was recently at ANI for this. Not worth our effort to maintain this article in light of the lack of substantial coverage/marginal-at-best notability Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC) M[reply]

Comment: Just a note that I had tried to find sources out there for this article. The original AfD listed four articles that apparently showed that the person met GNG. However, three of those are now dead. I have asked Cunard if they are able to find them again so I can at least verify some of the information in the article. Right now it looks like a WP:DEL7 situation but I want to reserve judgement in the hopes that Cunard can pull through with the info. --Majora (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've reviewed the sources in the first AfD discussion, plus those in the article itself. The idea that the subject meets GNG, or WP:AUTHOR, is laughable. This is superficial press-release coverage. While we're at it, Sweethearts (book) needs to go too, methinks, but as before I'll wait for a second person to agree with me before nominating. Don't forget all the redirects which are the remnants of what used to be a substantial walled garden. E Eng 21:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't nominate the book for deletion as Kirkus saw fit to review it. Kirkus is solid. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus is no longer solid. They review self-published books if the author pays them. It was OK back in 1994, but ohey always published only brief reviews, and i've commented further at the AfD for the book. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG as I mentioned at the other AfD, please provide your links for this. Otherwise, I think we're talking about two different services, Kirkus and Kirkus Indie. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we even discussing this here? The review is about the book, not Sharon Rich. And as regards the book, it's a superficial 12-sentence "review". By these low standards every book mentioned anywhere is notable. E Eng 22:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, a 12 sentence review is not superficial, nor is it just a mention, this is - "so and so has written a book about stuff, it is good/bad." Also, "why are we even discussing this (a book review(s)) here?", take a look at no. 3 of WP:NAUTHOR which talks of a significant/well known work/body of work that has reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my God. I remember now why I stay away from AfD. DGG, I'm leaving this up to you. Life's too short. E Eng 01:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any news or commentary about Rich in reliable sources beyond the NYT piece. There's a different Sharon J. Rich who has written some scholarly articles[4] and a Sharon Rich who is a financial planner[5][6][7][8][9][10] and a Sharon Rich who is a community activist in upstate New York[11][12][13] and a Sharon Rich who works public relations for Hennessey's Tavern in Southern California[14] but none of these are the author of the Sweethearts book. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In light of new sources, especially the LA Times pieces from '74 and '95, I am changing my !vote. Binksternet (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that Sharon Rich's research is cited by other authors writing about the same topic, as I noted in the book AfD here. Rich is not some unknown person striving for importance. Her work significantly changed the subject of the Eddy and MacDonald biographies. Subsequent authors writing about the topic must define themselves relative to the stance taken by Rich. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ^{changed because of new sources added 22:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)} ~~Delete & redirect~~ - to Sweethearts (book). ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)^{strike 04:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Don't waste your time. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweethearts (book). E Eng 02:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments for D are compelling. My thoughts from the beginning were to merge the book and author. Now I'm struggling over fancruft vs historic value, which in this particular instance is notable. Perhaps NEXIST also applies here? Jytdog's point about promotion is certainly worthy of concern - there's no denying promotion is a problem on WP, especially where books, movies, and music are concerned - but then WP:AUTHOR #3 comes to mind.

^{Atsme📞📧} 11:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see the references I added to the article. She was profiled first in the 70s for her first book, then later for her work on Sweethearts, which is notable, too. She has been covered in NY Times, LA Times and other reliable sources. Ping @Atsme, EEng, and Binksternet: to see what you think of the new sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I watched those changes; they are here. This is mostly fancruft kind of stuff, like the award from the "Entertainment Book Club" whatever that is. She is a super-fan for sure. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. E Eng 22:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Delete to punish some content contributors for contributing the wrong content" is not one of our pillars. Other issues were resolved at the previous AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about punishing anyone. It is about whether the subject is important enough for the volunteer community to keep putting effort into maintaining neutrality in the face of relentless promotional pressure. In my view, it isn't. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One possibly significant book is not enough to justify two articles--trying to do that is promotional. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and , Megalibrarygirl, Kirkus and KirkusIndie are two halves of the same company. See their website. Such an intimate connection is in my opinion enough to make the entire company unreliable. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at the low end of notability, but enough to keep this article, especially if the book details are merged here. Possibly disambiguate, as there's no clear case that this is the most notable Sharon Rich; however I'm not sure if any of the other Sharon Rich's have enough content to justify an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Power-enwiki, and believe merging will resolve the N issues while maintaining the historic significance of the book and the author's notability. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of additional sourcing by Megalibrarygirl; and especially if the book details are merged to this biog per Power~enwiki. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Anybody talking about a Wikipedia article as "this blog" is incompetent to be !voting in an AfD. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)~~ (i need glasses; my apologies Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Pssst...Jytdog - that's BIOG as in biography...not blog. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Additional material establishes notability. The article is a little light, but I must point out that Kirkus Reviews are HIGHLY notable and well worth including here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content added by Megalibrary girl was crap (again what is the "entertainment book club"?) and the kirkus review is about the book; N is not inherited.

In response to your question (and please forgive me for using a blog but it explains it without me having to search further) see this. One could say it's "historic"? Goshes...to think the 70s is now historic. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not a really noteworthy award. fancruft. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in its current state passes the basic editorial requirements for inclusion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage as shown by the additions to the article since it was nominated. gongshow talk 08:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As I said at the top I was reserving judgement to see if someone could find what I could not. Apparently I need to improve my searching abilities as they were severely lacking in this case. Now that there are good sources to verify content my original issues has been resolved. A merge of her book into this article would probably be a good idea and I'm going to say as much at the other AfD. --Majora (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Turner, Patricia C. (1993-10-18). "Hearing Their Love Call". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Now, almost 60 years later, Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy are alive and vibrant, at least in the hearts of those who pay $40 a year to belong to the Mac/Eddy Club, which is based at 101 Cedar Lane, Teaneck. There are 2,800 of these people, according to Sharon Rich, the Teaneck resident whose home serves as headquarters even as she serves as president.
  Rich co-founded the organization in 1977 with Diane Goodrich of New York City.
  ...
  Rich, for instance, is 39 years old; the vice president of Mac/Eddy is 34 - "youngsters," she called them.
  Rich's introduction to the subject is unusual.
  Growing up in a suburb of Los Angeles, she and others from her high school honor society did volunteer work at the Motion Picture Home.
  She was assigned to assist Jeanette MacDonald's older sister, Blossom Rock, in a play the home was putting on. Rock had suffered a stroke.
  "We became friends and hit it off," Rich said of Rock, a character actor from the 1930s under her stage name Marie Blake, and the grandmother to the Addams Family in the 1960s under her own name.
  ...
  Years later, Rich would complete a biography of the two movie idols, and the affair they had "on and off for 30 years."
2. Yampert, Rick de (2004-05-21). "Author claims to reveal 'Hollywood's biggest cover-up'". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Rich was a fledgling 16-year-old writer in her native Woodland Hills, in the Los Angeles area, when she met MacDonald's sister Blossom Rock, who had portrayed Grandmama in the TV show "The Addams Family." Rich had never heard of Jeanette MacDonald or Nelson Eddy.
  "When I learned from Blossom there had been a romance between Jeanette and Nelson, it meant nothing to me," Rich says. That is, until she "started reading in the film history books that they hated each other off-screen. I asked Blossom, 'Why are you telling me one thing and the books say
  something else?' When she started telling me the story, I realized this is one of Hollywood's biggest cover-ups, and one of its most tragic cover-ups."
  When Rich decided to plunge ahead and write a book about the affair, she met resistance. Eddy's widow, Ann, and MacDonald's widower, Gene Raymond, were still alive but wouldn't discuss the adulterous romance between their famous spouses. In fact, Rich says, Ann Eddy and Raymond "went overboard trying to keep the story suppressed." Was pursuing the book "harsh on them?" Rich asks herself. "I imagine so." But, she adds, she knew "the story was true" and "they were public figures."
  ...
  "Sweethearts," which was published in 1994 and updated for a new edition in 2001, includes 56 pages of documentation detailing Rich's sources, which included love letters, diaries, FBI records, personal interviews and unpublished memoirs.
  In the new edition's preface, Rich writes: "There are many people who were friends and still vehemently deny any relationship - because Jeanette and/or Nelson themselves never spoke of it to them or denied it themselves."
3. Bawden, Jim (1996-05-17). "Screen lovebirds took roles to heart". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Rich is a New York writer who was editing an opera magazine when she get hooked on the "MacEddy" movies. "I became friends with Jeanette's sister, Blossom Rock, who told me about their clandestine love affair. Both of them had married other people and because it was the 1930s any scandal would have wrecked their careers. Jeanette's image was very much that of a lady. They went on loving each other to the day Jeanette died."
  Rich was able to obtain letters Nelson had written Jeanette revealing all but says "the reaction of some fans was furious. The British chapter threatened to picket me if I came to their convention. But others are relieved the truth is finally out. Nelson was quite a womanizer and Jeanette finally had had enough and married actor Gene Raymond for stability.
  "That didn't stop her from caring for Nelson. It's just like in their movies when they sing 'Indian Love Call,' isn't it?"
4. Brozan, Nadine (1995-02-17). "Chronicle". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
  The article notes:
  
  SHARON RICH, the author of three books about Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy, will be making a pilgrimage to Washington next Friday on behalf of the two crooners, who appeared together in eight films.
  It's not fair, Ms. Rich said, that the movie stars' likenesses have never been on a United States postage stamp. Ms. Rich, who is also head of Eddy-MacDonald fan club, has collected 20,000 signatures on a petition and will take them to the capital "to toss them on the desk of the person in charge of making decisions" at the Postal Service. In addition, she will bring with her a contingent of other fans who will march along with her singing "Indian Love Call," the couple's famous duet.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sharon Rich to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deadpool in film

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

This is a fork article created by a banned user. All this content could easily be included in the X-Men (film series) article. Similar articles exist for Spider-Man, Batman and Superman but those characters have multiple film series with several decades of history. This articles existsence is not justified. Before anyone brings up continuity I will point out that continuity in the X-Men film series is confused and inconsitent for other characters as well. ★Trekker (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is just content copied from several other articles that all work fine on their own. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article not needed. (As per nominator). The creator of the article is a sock puppet and has been blocked indefinitely. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Unnecessary.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Adamstom.97. Any information on appearances of the character in film should be on Deadpool (Other versions / In other media sections) and/or the film pages themselves. = paul2520 (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 05:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chihayafuru Part 3

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

WP:TOOSOON. The only notability for unreleased films comes from significant media attention, something which this has not elicited in major publications. DrStrauss talk 17:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please refer to WP:NFF: for unreleased films, the issue is not just the degree of media attention, but whether the commencement of principal photography can be confirmed by reliable sources. Given that this is a very popular series in Japan, there are already a number of articles, including in major papers like the Mainichi, that confirm the commencement of principal photography: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], etc. The first previews have even been released: [24]. Michitaro (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NFF. Simple. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twitches (film series)

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

Not usual to have film series articles for two films. Mostly a content fork of the two films, anything else could be incorporated at the Twitches article. --wooden superman 08:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Run Features

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

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, either interviews or business as usual announcements, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a well-known and successful indie and doc film distributor, but I too can't immediately find any in-depth coverage beyond acquisition announcements. I think I remember once reading a piece on the CEO and/or the company, but can't find it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources I found: The New York Times, indieWire (a bit press release-ish), a couple of the acquisition announcements in Variety 1, 2. Google Books Search shows a few passing results. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the above sources, an 1999 article from The Advocate [25] ("After years of struggle, First Run Features thrives with gay and lesbian home video"). And First Run was the subject of multi-film retrospectives at the Museum of Modern Art in 2001 [26] and in 2009 at the Film Society of Lincoln Center.[27] --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the NYT piece was the one I was thinking of. That, with the Advocate, the retrospectives esp. the Film Society push it just past the bar, for me. Weak keep. The NYT piece really needs to be added to the article, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there seems to be room for good improvement. Bruzer Fox 09:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seem to be enough references, and the sheer number of notable films they've distributed is enough to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'll add the NYTimes reference found here to the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Two Years

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

Does not meet WP:NFP. Available sources are primary in nature or providing only passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this film's inclusion in this SLTribune's top-10 list of LDS cinema ~Awilley (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Coverage in the above-linked The Salt Lake Tribune article is not significant coverage at all; it consists of two short sentences. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a large regional newspaper giving their top 10 list a specific regional genre. Here's a NYTimes article also discussing this genre that talks about this film and HaleStorm Entertainment (also nominated for deletion) specifically. ~Awilley (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for improvements. IE: Rotten Tomatoes has several critic reviews, and IMDB also offers links to multiple reviews. Christianity Today has a review as well, as does efilmcritic and more. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Work and the Glory (film). -- RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Work and the Glory: American Zion (film)

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:NFP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was unable to find any reliable sources for this article. No sign of notability in the future. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to The Work and the Glory (film), the film that this was a sequel to. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested makes sense as the way to deal with it

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

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

The result was merge to Deseret Book. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excel Entertainment Group

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Many sources available in searches are only providing passing mentions, or are primary sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP guidelines. No inherit notability based on researching the subject.Comatmebro (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Deseret Book. We should keep information on a subsidiary of a larger company even if there is not lots of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Deseret Book. There was already a merge proposal with no objections (see Talk:Deseret Book#Merge Excel Entertainment Group to this article with no objections, so that is ready to do. The Book company page can incorporate any referenced material from the group page. Klbrain (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feature Films for Families

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

Has received some coverage, but not enough to qualify for a standalone article as per WP:CORPDEPTH. Many sources found via searches only provide passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with op. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinion must be discounted because it provides no reference to the supposedly found article. Sandstein 10:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarius Entertainment

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

Fails GNG. Defunct film company; press is limited to routine coverage in the trades. JSFarman (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though Clarius Entertainment was defunct, I found an article yesterday about if Clarius Entertainment released the film My All American. Evil Idiot 10:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although you haven't provided a link, articles I've found are company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. Please provide a link for the reference. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" is clearly unpersuasive. Sandstein 09:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aviron Pictures

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

Fails GNG. The company was established in 2016, and thus far the coverage is limited to routine press in film trades. JSFarman (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles about Avirion Pictures are found on PR Newswire page. They can help because they are reliable sources. Evil Idiot (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Except articles on "PR Newswire" are ... PR, articles authored and released by the company, and therefore those articles fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:ORGIND. No arguments were made about "reliable sources". A reliable source could print a company announcement or press release verbatim and it would fail as a PRIMARY source and fails WP:ORGIND since the resulting "article" would not be intellectually independent, even though it was published in a reliable source. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaashi Amarnath

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

No indication of notability per WP:NFILM or the WP:GNG. Single source cited is a trivial, passing mention. Author appears to have a WP:COI. PROD was removed by Krish! with rationale, "yes its a film", but I don't think that's at issue. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had deleted this as soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM, but noticed afterwards the contested PROD, so I've restored it and relisted it. I'm neutral as to the outcome of the AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough evidence of notability. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester International Short Film Festival

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG. I could not find significant coverage for this including its alternate name "Leicester Short Film Festival". LibStar (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note they go now by The Short Cinema Film Festival ([28]) - so totally different name for BEFORE. Yet - I haven't been able to find much independent of the festival.Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the BBC and Highbeam sources in the article, it doesn't help that it keeps changing its name Atlantic306 (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:NCORP; wikipedia is not a directory of nn festivals. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Templates