Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:25, 28 April 2024

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.

Shortcuts

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.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Film.

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Film AfDs

Scan for Film Prods
Scan for Film template TfDs

Related deletion sorting

Film

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poseidon (fictional ship)

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

Only sourced to the novel itself and the article is only plot with no real-world commentary, besides from its comparison to RMS Queen Mary. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Film. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like this is not independently notable, but please ping me if good sources are identified. Maybe some of the content could be added to The Poseidon Adventure (novel), although that article is currently only sourced to the book itself. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the commonality between the stories varies wildly so this seems relevant Sansbarry (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Neocorelight (Talk) 01:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only content present is simply brief plot summaries for the book and each of its adaptations, all of which are already covered better at each of their respective pages. Even that extremely small bit of "real-world" information regarding the production of the first movie is already included in that film's article. I am not really finding anything covering the fictional ship as a topic on its own where it would make sense to have a separate article on it, rather than just covering the relevant plot elements on each of the respective articles. I don't really see this as a likely search term at all, but if people would prefer a redirect, I would suggest having the target be the Poseidon (disambiguation) page, where the book and all of its adaptations are already listed. Rorshacma (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. This doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply plotcruft and nothing more. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 1 May 2024 (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.

(This discussion is) Off the Record

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

Before search revealed little results outside of sources already in article (passing mention in variety), fr-wiki article has little else to offer too. Someone should search in dutch but subject might not have another name based off filmfonds.nl source in article. (pinging Mushy Yank de-prodded) Justi yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Police, Internet, and Netherlands. Justi yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping and note. I deproDed the page because I believed that what is said in Screen Daily (although presented in an interview, and brief) + screening/nomination would make an Afd more suitable. It's probably not enough. The film/piece/project are covered partially elsewhere, but it's hard to say if the IDFA grant is significant enough or if what IDFA says about the film can be considered independent. There are the Variety and BDE mentions (see above and article); Yahoo News has a similar mention; there's other overage that might be judged significant and independent about the work:

Then back to the algorithmic crime prevention Nirit Peled delved into. Not a futuristic AI fantasy, but something already very concrete. The latter also applies to the performance inspired by it (this conversation is) Off the Record. In front of a room full of audience, a police officer (actor Janneke Remmers, with texts from real interviews) and human rights lawyer Jelle Klaas explain both sides of this stigmatising technique. Concluding with Peled wondering where empathy has gone, and why the algorithm's checklist does not look at the children's positive traits. They have all been given a digital copy of themselves, but where have they themselves gone? At that moment, it slowly starts to become clear how we can see this beautiful animation with figures wandering across a hall-wide screen. They are people, youngsters no doubt, but all wonderfully distorted. Towards the end, one slowly comes closer and closer, and behind that bizarre, digitally animated mask I thought I could actually see a pair of children's eyes. An unexpectedly touching moment. It just makes the thought that we could all be relegated to digital files all the more oppressive. in Cultuurpeers
Filmmaker Nirit Peled will introduce her extensive investigative research into the development of crime prevention algorithms in Amsterdam. Peled converts information, which is otherwise invisible, or simply incomprehensible, into narratives and images. Through her forthcoming documentary film Moeders and performative lecture Off the Record she offers a vivid account of the lived experiences and emotions of mothers whose sons have been impacted by algorithmic policing. (Fotodok)

All in all (and maybe there's more), I'd rather keep this, but that's just me. There's no page about the artist so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Yahoo News page duplicates the variety article I put in the nomination. I haven't seen the other two before but I don't think fotodok would be independent or significant as it appears to be from a bio of the artist.

The Cultuurpeers page looks reasonably reliable and gives a fine amount coverage. Let's see we could get another source. Justi yaya 04:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero coverage for this film project. The Fr wiki article is tagged for notability and it relies on mostly primary sources, so not really meeting requirements there either. I can't see anything that is in a RS; the blurb above is a brief mention. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Reel Award for Best Breakthrough Performance

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

My PROD tag was removed, so here we are. This is an older duplicate of Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance. As this award was divided into two categories from 2014 to 2023, the article is also partly a duplicate of Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Male and Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Female. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Film, and Awards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect (and merge, if necessary) to Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance seems quite uncontroversial (as the edit summary of the person who dpD the page stated, if I remember well). I had thought about it and deproDd it before reverting myself but on second second thoughts, redirects are cheap. I don't even think an Afd was necessary but thanks for taking the trouble.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then merge Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Male and Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Female into Black Reel Award for Best Breakthrough Performance. If we delete Black Reel Award for Best Breakthrough Performance we lose the 2003 through 2013 awards which were not divided by gender. ~Kvng (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2003 to 2013 awards are already covered in Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance. The article here is practically an older copy of that, hence the nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance per WP:CHEAP and numerous incoming links and attribution purposes. Sorry I misunderstood the proposal and am casting a new !vote here. ~Kvng (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2024 (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 Aranmanai 4. as an ATD. If you strongly object to this Redirection, feel free to take it to WP:RFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baakghost

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

The sources are all about Aranmanai 4, but make no mention of "Baakghost" or "Baak" (except in one source "Baak" is mentioned but it appears to be a character from Aranmanai 4." A hoax? Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A note that I have just nominated this for speedy deletion, even the IMDb doesn't exist for this "film". Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aranmanai 4, unless this version differs significantly. See my comment on TP (where I contested G3) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC) (Comment edited after I removed the CSD tag from the page)[reply]
Good catch, I also support redirect. Cleo Cooper (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aranmanai 4. The fact that the film was partially reshot (small percentage) with two different actors is entirely unsourced (till release). See List_of_multilingual_Indian_films#Partially_reshot_films. An attempt to recreate Baak (Telugu Film). @SenthilGugan: Mostly dubbed films do not get separate articles. DareshMohan (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Baakghost is incorrect; it is Baak. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is right, I forgot to mention that; but the content/subject being the said film, I find it is fairer, so as to be able to keep page history and credits, to rename after it's kept as redirect, than to plainly delete. That's what is generally done when the title of an Afded article appears to be incorrect. But thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It looks like just a copy-edited version of Aranmanai 4; Just an unnecessary content fork. Redirecting is pointless as not even the Google recognizes the name. See here 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All Google Search results are related to the Assamese folklore creature; and nothing about the film. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is totally unnecessary. Grabup (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but move the poster to the other article if possible. Looks cool. (141.132.22.10 (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2024 (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 merge‎ to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knightquest

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this meets WP:NFILM / WP:GNG. Kept at 2006 AfD, but standards were considerably lower then. Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. There's a paragraph in this The Weekly Standard article: [1], doesn't count as significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If not kept (and I am no sage of SW lore), merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits as an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits (which I think should split out), as it has won an award. If more secondary sources can be found, please let me know. Daranios (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits. There is very little on this. It gets a mention in an issue of Premiere magazine,[2] in a piece talking about approaches to franchise copyright infringement. It is also mentioned in this paper,[3] which looks at the phenomenon of fan films. No citations of that paper mind. Nothing here makes it notable in its own right, but the paper shows what is notable: fan films. This is held up as an interesting example of these. As such it really should be briefly covered on the cultural impact page, and it could also be mentioned on any other page about fan films. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 01:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Buddy Story

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

Found zero evidence of notability myself. Mushy Yank added a Variety article which mentions the film, but only very briefly, so I don't take it for much. And even then, if that's all there is then I don't see why this should've been dePRODded in the first place. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I deproDed the page because... the film might be notable (see my edit summary; and deletion did not seem uncontroversial). This is a released film with a notable cast, including a very notable actress (and, before anyone adds a link in caps to a WP essay, no, notability is not inherited but a notable cast contributes to a film's potential notability). The production received coverage (https://www.jpost.com/jewish-world/jewish-news/filmmaker-marries-hollywood-to-tikkun-olam#google_vignette; https://www.mtv.com/news/jic2e3/elisabeth-moss-a-buddy-story-trailer; https://www.slashfilm.com/520699/a-buddy-story-trailer-elizabeth-moss/) but they're not reviews. Is it significant enough? I don't know. But a PROD does not allow discussion, does it? Is there more? Maybe. This AfD might be the place to present other sources (NB- I've added a few tiny things, including the sources linked here). Is there an ATD? Maybe. Same answer. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete doesn't seem to meet WP:NF. It was missing from two of the cast's filmography tables so I added it in, noticed that Elizabeth Moss and Torah Feldshuh have both made more recent films that don't have articles so unless anyone can find better independent sources I don't think this needs an entry. Orange sticker (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Slash Film and MTV are RS, but they only briefly talk about the film's trailer, which I don't think help meet film notability. Those are about all I can find as well, I don't think we have enough for film notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2024 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gransito Movie Awards 2008

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

Perpetually unreferenced article lacks coverage, fails WP:GNG. Οἶδα (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it lacks the same coverage:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Οἶδα (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Internet, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If the award itself is not notable, neither would a listing of awardees per year. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Why? I Ask it's the award which is obscure and not notable (eg. no idea if it still exists, and if not when it was cancelled). Cavarrone 06:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website was last up in 2009[4], after which it was seemingly usurped. It appears to have been the only source (as an external link)[5], likely indicating self-promotion. No reliable, independent sources can be found on the topic, and thus it should not have a separate article (which was deleted 2017). These sub-articles should have gone with it. Οἶδα (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2024 (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 Animonsta Studios#Filmography. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Sphera Universe media

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

Reviewed during NPP. This is basically a catalog of a particular company's products. AFD nomination per no GNG sourcing of the topic per se and numerous wp:not issues. North8000 (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, Lists, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BoBoiBoy seems to cover this. The template for it can be edited to add in the few things missing. Dream Focus 17:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is not a catalog of a particular company's products and I have added more sources. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animonsta Studios#Filmography: Smells like fancruft/listcruft, and fails NLIST, nothing showing this has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. Found promo, listings, nothing from independent sources showing this meets NLIST. I thought about CLN, but don't think the few entries here need a second separate navigation list from Animonsta Studios#Filmography. Power Sphera Universe does not exist, and it doesn't appear there is WP:SIRS for the subject. // Timothy :: talk 06:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable franchise There are links to articles about the notable films and television shows in it. Perfectly valid navigational and information list. This format is more useful than just the template or a category, since it list how many episodes there were, the date of its original run, and the names of key people involved. Dream Focus 18:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Animonsta Studios#Filmography. Lorstaking (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Online Film Critics' Poll

AfDs for this article:

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

Listicle with minimal coverage (and what it does get is from blog-type websites rather than any major news source). Violates MOS:FILMACCOLADES, specifically the sentence 'Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not generally included'. Survived an AfD in 2013 that was marred by WP:SPA activity. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, and Internet. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. We don't have an article on the organisation "International Online Film Critics", so I don't know why we'd have an article on their poll. Desertarun (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I'm confused. Is this a fork of Online Film Critics Society? Bearian (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Despite their similar names, they're two different things. The Online Film Critics Society is a notable organisation and there's plenty of coverage for it. The International Online Film Critics' Poll has no significant coverage (or its own website). Sgubaldo (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom toweli (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2024 (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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jenma Films International

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The source cited as being the source for the entire text portion of the article is an obituary which makes only a brief mention of the company. And so the text of the article is about the person who died, not the company. The other refs are about films, not the company. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP: No significant coverage about the company. Sources are mostly about the films they have produced which fall under routine coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2024 (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)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women

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

Nothing in the article or my BEFORE suggests this meets WP:GNG (or WP:NFILM). Nothing in GBooks or GScholar (well, one mention in a German book?). Maybe there is some coverage in National Lampoon (magazine) ( September/October 1994), but it is a parody magazine, so not sure if it is reliable, and even if there is something there, GNG requires multiple sources (so at least one more). Can anyone find anything to rescue this - or failing that, suggest a valid redirect target? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hello Piotrus, I should think that even if the National Lampoon is a satirical magazine, it is significant coverage. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Forget what I said, it's obviously a primary source....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a few things. A redirect (many targets can be considered) is also possible. Opposed to Deletion. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Besides the reviews already in the article, there's this, this, this, this and this which is enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find independent sources. Does not pass WP:GNG Hkkingg (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hkkingg Take a look at what @Somebodyidkfkdt found. It looks promising, although sadly the last three seem to be empty? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TWL doesn't provide access to the last three unfortunately. There's also this, this, this and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful. What would the redirect target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~Delete~~ There are just two significant articles on this movie (that I can find). One is a full paragraph in TV Guide from 8/20/1994. The other is the LA Times article, which is genuinely substantial. This movie gets continued brief mentions in video guides, but almost nothing else. Hard to see this coming even close to meeting WP:NFILM Oblivy (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy Did you look at the sources found above? And are the sources you found oline and linkable for others to review? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus sorry I just did. The Entertainment Tonight article is lengthy, but I don't know if it counts towards the nationally known critics factor. The TV guide article is paywalled above but another TV guide article from the same date is here[6]. The video guides are available at archive.org. Oblivy (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy Playing the devil's advocate (since I am the nom), I think that we have enough sources to show this meets GNG with SIGCOV, although I did not access your sources (but coverage in LA Time, which you call substantial, is pretty good). I'll ping User:Cunard in case he can locate it and quote it/link it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, LA times is source #3. Oblivy (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to comment. There's little of substance except in that short period of 1994, but Cunard brought the sources. There's a common sense reading of GNG that could easily prevail here and I'd be fine with keeping the article. Oblivy (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bell, Miles (1994-08-19). "'Attack of 5'2'' Women'". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 333, no. 30. pp. 12, 16. ProQuest 2362086371.
  The review notes: "Julie Brown casts a long, amusing shadow in Showtime's head-strongly dumb "National Lam- poon's Attack of the 5'2" Women," an umbrella title for two films. The kicky pair of satires within spoof two of the media's recent bete noir bad girls, skater-agitator Tonya Harding and impromptu surgeon Lorena Bobbitt, whose fictional counterparts are both played by Brown. Yes, nothing is sacred and all bets are off as "Attack" goes on the offensive, seizing the public personas of Harding and Bobbitt to transmit a picture of cheesy, pulp aspirations, where fame and lame are interchangeable and mass communications is the twisted funnel through which rattles the news. ... Ah, but an instant before this, the missus learns that her recently repaired hubby has been cheating again. Ouch! Sophomoric and crude, and way too long, "Attack" manages to play as a fun-dumb damning of the media-rama."
2. Hiltbrand, David (1994-08-22). "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 ft.2 Women". People. Vol. 42, no. 8. p. 12. EBSCOhost 9408227615.
  The review notes: "In this daffy double-header, Julie Brown spoofs two of last year's tabloid inamoratas. First, in an utterly unruly farce, she plays Tonya Hardly. The chain-smoking, asthma-atomizer-sucking, overweight skater is consumed with jealously for her competitor Nancy Cardigan (Khrystyne Haje). ... While this pair of infamous headline-generators present perfect targets for Brown's raucous, ribald satire, the fact is that both episodes seem a little dated already. Nothing goes stale faster than a juicy tabloid scandal. Grade: B+"
3. Schwarzbaum, Lisa (1994-08-19). "Feminine High Jinks". Entertainment Weekly. No. 236. p. 46. EBSCOhost 9408227610.
  The review notes: "In NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ATTACK OF THE 5'2" WOMEN (Showtime, Sunday, 8-9:30 p.m.), the very funny, very brazen star of Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful, the wicked 1991 parody of Madonna's Truth or Dare parody, sinks her fangs into two notorious women of recent headlines, figure skater Tonya Harding and spouse mutilator Lorena Bobbitt, and doesn't let go. As she did in Medusa, Brown ... sticks closely to the original text; in this case, her text is the chronology of Harding's bumbling plot to sideline her hated rival, Nancy Kerrigan, and Bobbitt's bumbling plan to sideline her hated husband, John Wayne Bobbitt. ... That Attack of the 5'2" Women flags is due to its length--90 minutes is a hell of a long way to go for two jokes--as well as to the datedness of its situations. There are no two recent, overreported media stories richer for comedy by and about women than those of Harding and Bobbitt, and, consequently, we've already seen and heard a heap. This quarry is too easy. In the name of comedy sisterhood, Julie Brown should lace up her bustier and work at a tougher assignment--say, whipping sketch comedy into shape. She TV: C+ At-tack of the 5'2" Women: B-. "
4. Willman, Chris (1994-08-20). "TV Reviews : '5 Ft. 2 Women' Doesn't Measure Up as Timely Satire". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review ntoes: "For, though everyone would recognize John Wayne Bobbitt (or Juan Wayne, as his wife calls him here) as the funnier figure from his subsequent deadpan attempts to cash in on his celebrity, Brown hogs the comedy in this half with her Venezuelan accent and a macha swagger that doesn’t quite square with anyone’s worst picture of the real Lorena. As a targetless spoof, it’s, well, satirically challenged."
5. Taylor, Jonathan (1994-08-19). "He Never Give Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story". Variety. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "Brown’s brilliant Madonna satire, “Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful,” and her campy novelty hit songs like “Homecoming Queen’s Got a Gun” point to her obvious skill. But “Attack of the 5’2″ Women” comes off no better than a latter-day National Lampoon, where the philosophy has descended to the point where anything is allowed, and it would be good if at least some of it were funny."
6. Mendoza, Manuel (1994-08-21). "Tonya-Lorena sendup is a mean-spirited letdown". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "The humor in "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Give Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story" is broad - Ms. Harding's behind, for instance, is the target of many a joke. And the panting media, perfect prey, escape virtually unscathed. Ms. Brown plays both women as conniving, clueless and exceedingly tacky. The adjectives "gross" and "cheap" also come to mind - for example, when, in trying to attract "Juan Wayne," Ms. Babbitt licks a jukebox. Meanwhile, "Tonya Hardly" cuts her pizza with her skates, while her ditzy competitor "Nancy Cardigan" endorses pork with the line, "It's really neat." Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women isn't."
7. Richmond, Ray (1994-08-19). "Television - HBO 'Enemy' Remake Wages Uphill Battle". Daily News of Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "This elevation of tackiness to an art form is what we get from Julie Brown in "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," a rousing 90- minute double feature of rude, crude and lewd that premieres at 8 p.m. Sunday on Showtime. Brown portrays Harding (called Tonya Hardly here) and Bobbitt (Lenora Babbitt for these purposes) in a pair of satires that prove as side-splitting as they are over-the-top. ... "Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women" is undeniably sophomoric stuff. Yet it's often so funny you have trouble catching your breath."
8. Laurence, Robert P. (1994-08-18). "Tawdry events turn into comedies - Harding, Bobbitt inspire outrageous minimovies". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "Under the umbrella title, "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," Brown presents "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Gave Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story." ... Her method is simple. Beginning with stories we all know, she takes each somewhere beyond the truth, twisting here, adding there, being careful to offend just about everybody at one time or another. And yes, both are very funny -- if you're not the sort to be easily outraged."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Cunard and other editors earlier in the discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2024 (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) Cavarrone 23:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliyum Oliyum

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

Undersourced. Tagged for notability for over a decade. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would seem to be notable [7], but this area of film isn't my expertise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have added References clearly notable Tamil song program was amongst the most popular in Tamil Nadu during the Doordarshan era.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources references added to the article that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 22 April 2024 (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 merge‎ to List of National Geographic original programming as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 21:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going Ape

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

This article was previously deleted after an expired PROD. I could not find significant coverage of this documentary in reliable sources. I could not find any critical reviews. The New York Times source states, in full: "This three-part series looks at the way humans mimic chimpanzee behavior, starting with the power walk and dominance posture of the alpha male." The Futon Critic is a press release. A redirect to National Geographic Channel might be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Animal, Science, Behavioural science, Psychology, and Social science. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article should probably be marked as a stub in need for more references. As a National Geographic TV show featuring renowned primatologist and presenter Charlotte Uhlenbroek, it must have had coverage and reviews in media. The New York Times link is an example. JohnMizuki (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JohnMizuki, I conducted a search and the only coverage of the show are brief announcements like the one in the NYT. A one sentence description is not significant coverage. The source's that you've added do not contribute to notability. The National Geographic sources are not independent and TV Guide is a one sentence description with links to find where to watch the show online.
One way to establish notability would be to provide the three best sources that you can find. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding new sources that have been added: Broadway World is a NatGeo press release; OC Register has only three sentences about Going Ape: "This three-part series examines how similar human behavior is to that of our primate cousins. The show uses hidden cameras, social experiments and footage of apes and monkeys in the wild to show how human social behavior mirrors that of other species."; and Gizmodo is one sentence followed by a couple paragraphs quoting from a NatGeo press release description of the show.
I will also add that I conducted my WP:BEFORE search on Google, Google News, and Newspapers.com, and the only sources I could find were one or two sentence TV Guide-type listings in newspapers, similar to the NYT. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the newly added citations, it seems to fail GNG. Nearly all of the sources (other than PRs) make brief mentions of the show. It lacks in-depth independent analysis/coverage from a reliable major pub. X (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of National Geographic original programming. Fails WP:GNG as a standalone article. Available independent sources are only short descriptions from TV listings, not significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2024 (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. No consensus to delete or redirect. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kunguma Kodu

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

Yet one of many articles created in a spree by Rajeshbieee in violation of WP:NOTDATABASE. Although this film has a notable hero, I can't find third-party sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Tamil films of 1988. Simple search did not show any reliable sources with any coverage enough to warranty a page. Film can be viewed on YouTube and we know it is there but reliable sources are not available. This is mostly the case with less known or forgotten films. The sources on the page do not have any coverage and are unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to V. Azhagappan#Filmography: or to the list mentioned. Not opposed to keep if sources are presented (opposed to deletion). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: The article is still undersourced, but kudos to Srivin for adding more sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reviewed the refs added and they don't support notability. They are just listings or such. Desertarun (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an unusual AFD discussion as the nomination has been withdrawn but there is more support for Deletion than Keeping the article. Please review recent improvements to the article that have occurred over the past two days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for an evaluation of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still under discussion? I already said withdraw, per WP:HEY. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the withdrawal, there are extant deletion !votes. Personally I'd have closed it with another week having passed without input but a relist is a viable call. Star Mississippi 02:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If the consensus isn't "keep", then "redirect" is better. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, there is also more than one redirect target article suggested which might result in a No consensus closure. Closers shouldn't be deciding which target article is more appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 3 May 2024 (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. People are on the fence about this, but the discussion trends towards "keep" as more sources were discovered and the article improved throughout the AfD. Sandstein 07:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters (2004 film)

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

Completely unsourced article about a short film. The attempted notability claim here is that it won an award at a minor film festival, but WP:NFILM does not just indiscriminately accept every single film festival award on earth as a notability-locking award -- that only goes to major internationally prominent film festivals such as Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance whose awards get broadly reported by the media as news, because even the award itself has to meet the notability criteria for awards before it can make its winners notable for winning it. But the award claim here is unsourced, and the article isn't citing any other sources for anything else either. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything. It's entirely possible that there are sources that aren't online, but I can't really find anything to firmly argue that either. That leaves us with the sole claim of this winning an award at BUFF. I would argue that the award would give the film some notability, just not enough to keep on that basis alone. BUFF is a notable film festival, but not notable or major enough to be on the level that is expected of the award criteria for NFILM. It's not a slam against BUFF - most film festivals aren't at that level. If someone can produce a couple of good sources (as well as one for the award) then I'm open to changing my opinion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reviews from The Guardian and Film Threat [8] [9]. Although both of the other sources are direct interviews, the Film Threat source goes into detail about the film's reception and what the director feels he should change if he had the chance to retake the film. What do you think about the new sourcing @Bearcat: @ReaderofthePack:? DareshMohan (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely on the right track, but I'd still need to see proper reliable sourcing (i.e. not the self-published website of the film's own distributor) for the award claims before I was prepared to withdraw this from discussion entirely — an award has to be one that gets covered by the media (i.e. passes GNG in its own right) in order to gain the privilege of making its winners notable for winning it, so award wins have to be sourced to media coverage to prove that the award is notable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Audience award at a film festival doesn't seem to meet film notability. The rest seems to be local coverage, of a hometown hero-type coverage. I don't see anything written about this short film otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Couldn't source the audience award. Sourced the other award based on [10]. @Oaktree b: @Bearcat: If two reviews (the Guardian one is a capsule review) doesn't add notability, then this article can be deleted. DareshMohan (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reliable source either. We need to see real media, not blogs. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my delete vote. I suppose if pressed I'd consider this a week keep based on the two reviews, but I'm not really satisfied enough to say that officially. Here's my argument as to why I removed the delete:

So far, there's no definitive judgment based on review length. The reason why is that review length doesn't automatically mean that something is of good or bad quality. Every time someone tries, the argument centers back on one central point: what makes a review a review is that the journalist forms an opinion or judgment on the film, which can be done in just a few sentences. It doesn't help that there are lengthier reviews out there that tend to discuss general things (or navel gaze) for a few paragraphs, then use the final one to give the actual opinion/judgment. There's also the outlet to consider, because a capsule review from a nationally known paper like The Guardian is going to be more impressive than if my local paper, which has at most half the circulation of TG, were to review the same short film. It's not a knock against my local paper, just that the higher circulation means that TG is presumably going to be more discerning because they have a larger audience. (IE, more mainstream publications are more likely to focus on mainstream stuff whereas a smaller paper could review something off the wall because there's potentially less red tape and so on.)

It's pretty rare that short films get reviews at all and when they do, the length is usually short because they're going to be watching it with a batch of other stuff at a film festival or packaged with a full-length movie. It's rare that a short film is the sole focus, because there's a bit of risk in covering short films.

So my next focus then is whether or not the article will be anything other than a paragraph of content. I do see two interviews on there and while sure, they're primary, they can still be used to expand the article and give it at least somewhat more encyclopedic value. We could probably improve the production section to be more than a big quote and we could also add a release section. I see that it was given a re-release at a 2020 film festival, the Lyon Festival Hallucinations Collectives, so that's definitely something. I suppose that last bit could qualify as a bit of notability but one would need to find sourcing and honestly, I never feel comfortable arguing for a keep that way unless it's at a very notable festival or the institution holding the festival or retrospective are very notable. This is close, but it still feels pretty weak. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the director notable? A good alternative might be to create an article for the director and summarize this there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he has an article: Robert Morgan (filmmaker). Maybe just summarize the release and production there? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've greatly improved the article. It looks fairly proper now. I wouldn't mind this being kept. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All in all, coverage and nomination seem to show it might be notable. A redirect to the director seems warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 25 April 2024 (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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Empire: A Talk by Chalmers Johnson

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

Article about a documentary film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. The main notability claim on offer here is that it exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself without evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about it -- but the only references here are a directory entry and a book review which fails to mention this film at all for the purposes of helping to support the notability of the film. The film's subject was certainly notable enough that his article isn't going anywhere, so a redirect to his biographical article would be reasonable, but this article as written isn't properly establishing the film as independently notable enough for its own separate article at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the recording and Johnson were important at the time this was filmed. As a former advisor to the CIA and government about Asian affairs, he was outspoken in books, TV interviews, and newspaper articles warning of the coming 9/11 attack, seeing it as "Blowback" to US policy - the name of his first book in the trilogy published before the terrorist attack. He was also just as outspoken about the mistake it was for GW Bush to go into Iraq. Johnson was prophetic - but that was then. This talk was the culmination of his American Empire Project which reviewed the points in his three books on the topic, However, the talk itself is now available on YouTube, so, I agree to delete it - unless just being a page for a commercially released DVD is worthy of a page. Ellis408 (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 23 April 2024 (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.

Proposed deletions

Chris Gore (via WP:PROD on 13 September 2023)

Templates

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 ==Film==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poseidon (fictional ship)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(This discussion is) Off the Record}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Black_Reel_Award_for_Best_Breakthrough_Performance}}