Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Film|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Film. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch
Scan for Film AfDs

Scan for Film Prods
Scan for Film template TfDs

Related deletion sorting


Film[edit]

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Raladic (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of EGOT winners of Filipino descent[edit]

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

As it appears there is only one winner of EGOT of Filipino descent that fits the criteria, this list article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NLIST. Nominations for awards alone are not typically enough for notability unless it's multiple per WP:ANYBIO. There are separate lists for winners/nominations for the 4 separate awards that make up EGOT for other countries, but all of those have a stricter inclusion criteria (not descent, but actually from the country) than just descent, so this list is wrong on the basis of being about EGOT, which is something WP:SPECIFIC and on the basis of being inconsistent regarding inclusion criteria compared to other separated out awards lists. Raladic (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator following below discussion with article creator, rescoping the article to address the issues I raised by renaming and removing descent based criteria for WP:CONSISTENT with other such (split out) lists. Raladic (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::Delete: I think it's the best thing to delete this article rather than move because I mistook the title early. It wasn't for Lopez's wins but for Filipino descent as an equal. I believe "List of EGOT winners and nominees of Filipino descent" is a good title or you can rename it to "List of Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony winners and nominees of Filipino descent" as a whole list of accolades involving Filipino descent. As a matter of fact, it lacks the information of accolades or "winners and nominees" of Filipino descent like "List of Oscar winners and nominees of Filipino descent" or "List of Grammy winners and nominees of Filipino descent". So, I put that title as a whole list rather than separate. GeniusTaker (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I expanded on in the nomination, this list is inconsistent with other lists about the separated-out awards, which are not about descent, but about people from those countries.
So per WP:CONSISTENT, the current list fails this and should be reduced to either being a combined list, or 4 separate lists, but narrowed down to "List of Filipino X award winners and nominees", without the "descent" part. Raladic (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about "List of Filipino Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony award winners and nominees"? Was it good for you? Because I don't want that separate list but instead as a whole. It's very difficult for that. GeniusTaker (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that can work if you don't want to split it out, but you'd have to remove all people from the current lists that are only of descent.
Please strike your above "Delete" (by putting <del> and </del> around it) and I can withdraw the deletion nomination and we can speedy keep it and then move it to the right article title. Raladic (talk) 03:26, 15 July 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.

Buffering (2011 film)[edit]

Buffering (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. Sources provided are unconvincing. IMDB is not a WP:RS. The other two are links to basic details of the film. Nothing provided that has covered the film significantly. No reviews, no nothing. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 21:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decoded (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Film has not been created or released yet and little to no coverage. The only source provided is a link to the film's trailer. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 21:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paramount Pictures films (1970–1979)[edit]

List of Paramount Pictures films (1970–1979) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sources to add to show it meets WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Columbia Pictures films (1990–1999)[edit]

List of Columbia Pictures films (1990–1999) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sources to add to show it meets WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanson Brothers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article is largely unsourced original research and fancruft. A search of sourcing reveals an absence of articles on this particular plot element in the film "Slap Shot." Every single article mentions the fictional "Hanson Brothers" in the larger context of the film, and I haven't seen a single source on the "brothers" themselves. A previous AfD in 2016 resulted in a "keep," but at the time there was no evidence provided of such independent sourcing. Therefore deletion or merge to the Slap Shot article is warranted. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universal Pictures films (1980–1989)[edit]

List of Universal Pictures films (1980–1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sitaare Zameen Par (film)[edit]

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

Nominated per WP:TOOSOON. Adnan (ᵀᵃˡᵏ) 14:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 20th Century Fox films (1980–1989)[edit]

List of 20th Century Fox films (1980–1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. It has no assertion of notability or references. Boleyn (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikandar (2025 film)[edit]

Sikandar (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated per WP:TOOSOON. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify; WP:CRYSTAL Promotional hype is not a source of wisdom for wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 16:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These searches may or may not be more helpful than those above: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; Salman Khan's film aren't the usually cancelled or shelved, especially in past few years., And I disagree with WP:TOOSOON, as Brad Pitt starrer F1 (film) is set to release in June 2025, while Sikandar is confirmed to release in March 2025. I suggest review on this. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the review that you suggest. The news sources that I linked suggest that shooting has begun, passing the first part of WP:NFF, but I wont give a bolded opinion because I think that our standards for anything to do with the film world are too lax. I would say that same if I was commenting on the Brad Pitt film. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you compare the two articles, F1 has a much more developed production section, with significantly more information, more sources and more than enough to show the production itself is notable, meeting NFF. Ravensfire (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft: This does not meet WP:NFF as there isn't enough to show the production itself is notable. A handful of standard publicity pieces and basic information doesn't meet that criteria. Move to draft until the production section is better developed with good sources. Ravensfire (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Find some neutral and non-churny sources, please; the 'poster' image (which isn't even a poster) is also out because it was literally ripped off the film's Twitter account. We also can't concievably compare the production track of a large-scale Hollywood action film about auto racing to whatever this is (that we don't have a plot to, mind you). Nate • (chatter) 23:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify The F1 (film) comparison is useful in showing the kind of sourced information that we'd need to meet WP:NFF—details about the production history and distribution. Right now it's primarily announcements about development and pre-production since production only began recently. hinnk (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Fails WP:NFF as there isn't enough to show the production notablity. Charliehdb (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. This is another case of a movie article created way ahead and has not even reached post-production stage. Too early to have an article in namespace. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning[edit]

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

I accepted this article from draft with the intention that it meets WP:GNG. This is also done with the guidelines for accepting drafts via AFC process. However, another editor questioned my acceptance with the opposing question of this article not meeting GNG, as well as a prior work of socks. I told him to take it to AFD for a formal discussion yet he chose to ignore that and sincerely wanted to investigate more. The problem is that there haven't been any problem I can see about this article and being created via AFC is a handful way of seeking a second review otherwise opinion. I have brought it here for a formal discussion, and still maintain keeping the article. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aangan Ke Laxmi[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. In fact there not even enough sourcing ( or content) to figure out what this is about. Appears to be a mashup of two different films with similar names. Aangan Ke Laxmi and Aangan Ki Laxmi Info box says 1986 film but the only two sources that actually discuss it are short "future film" type pieces from a couple years ago. Found nothing in a search for Aangan Ke Laxmi North8000 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It appears there have been a few mixups here. It looks like Aangan Ke Laxmi (the article title) is a 1986 film (entirely non-notable); see this mention in a book bibliography. Sources 3 and 4 in the article are referring to a film called Aangan Ki Laxmi (sometimes Aangan Ki Lakshimi), which has more coverage and was released last year. Aangan Ki Laxmi probably meets NFILM/GNG (see [5][6][7] and on Google). It would be helpful here if the creator (NIA3000) clarifies what exactly this article is about or if the two films are related. If it is about the 1986 film, then I vote delete. Otherwise, I am not familiar enough with the topic to decide what to do here. C F A 💬 19:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the second film is notable, would Draftifying this help? Get it sorted out and publish back in mainspace with proper sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine with me. But there's a lot to sort out, starting with the title. And there's not much to save. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Hungama Style Icons[edit]

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

Non-notable award show sourced mainly to the parent company Bollywood Hungama. Sources I find are all unreliable or just verification of winners. Would redirect but we know how that goes so suggesting a redirect as an WP:ATD here in case full deletion is not in order. CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yabani[edit]

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

I am not sure but want a definitive consensus on the notability of this TV series. First off, the article doesn't meet our guideline per WP:NFP–there is totally a decline of SIGCOV, or maybe because I didn't find either, but I tried searching only to see release dates announcements, etc, and thus, doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS.

On another note, I found out that the additional criteria WP:NFO, and WP:NFIC may push for the userfication, given thoughts that it may still meet notability at the highest release (seems like it has been released), and because it started notable actors and actresses. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there was a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target if redirect is chosen could be NOW_(Turkish_TV_channel)#Weekly_series.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batboat[edit]

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

This is WP:OR of a list of watercraft from batman comics. Even when you hone in on a discrete topic, it's sourced to angelfire. It has no independent reliable sources. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for any of these boats / submarines / scooters / etc. Jontesta (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify I agree that the article is mostly uncited, and that article mainly mentions its appearances. I feel the article should be taken back to draftspace, where it can be further researched-on and improved. It is notable, as anyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is. Right now, it definitely doesn't deserve mainspace. MK at your service. 12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "[A]nyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is" does NOT mean the topic is notable, particularly not per Wikipedia's notability standards for article subjects. Nor is the quoted statement true, since the boat certainly does not occur in every episode or every game, etc. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unlike the article on, say, the Batmobile, this article is not really about a single, coherent topic, and is just a list of a bunch of unrelated watercraft that various incarnations of Batman happened to use, relying almost entirely on non-reliable sources. If anyone suggests a viable Redirect target, I am fine with that as an ATD, but a Merge anywhere would be out of the question due to the poor quality of the sources being used. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Delete - per nom, is largely unsourced fancruft. Not particularly supportive of drafting, as I don't particularly think this is o r of those things more time will solve... Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While the article is poorly written, the subject appears notable and received significant coverage in several independent books: Batman's Arsenal, Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight, Slashfilm(?) I think people underestimate how entrenched Batman is in popular culture. Due to the problems being seemingly WP:SURMOUNTABLE, refusal to improve an article is not a viable deletion argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm those two books seem to be plot summary to me. Additionally, the second book appears to be a primary source, while the first book appears to be an unauthorized encyclopedia that is not actually analyzing anything, and only giving plot details or summary information. The final source appears to be development info that doesn't contribute to showing independent notability, and is better off covered at Batman Forever. None of these show any independent coverage from the source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being "unauthorized" has no bearing on whether a source can be used - we are not a fan wiki. DK books are not primary; they are published by Dorling Kindersley, a known encyclopedia publisher. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, then, on misconstruing the books. I could've sworn at one point that "unauthorized" books were unable to be used, and I misread the publisher on the second. Either way, they're still only plot details and summaries of what it is with no real significant commentary. The sources don't really do much to show significant impact, especially since encyclopedias of various subjects are pretty standard fare in numerous big fandoms and often only give summary over commentary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do admit that, at least in this case, there doesn't seem to be commentary on the Batboat that would make it pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but it is clear that the WP:BEFORE here has come up wanting and needs more work. Hence, "weak keep" until someone decides to actually do an exhaustive search and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no external commentary on the impact or influence of the Batboat's existence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If they aren't independent sources covering the Batboat in a context that would actually illustrate independent notability, then they aren't worth bringing up in the nomination and certainly wouldn't count in a BEFORE as being enough to salvage the article. If the sources you're using as an example of "the BEFORE not being done" are sources typically ignored in a BEFORE for not being significant coverage, then I'm not sure what your argument really is here. I can't speak on the nominator's BEFORE without them clarifying (To which I ask @Jontesta to clarify just in case) but if the target article isn't notable then it shouldn't be kept solely on the basis of a Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a "sources must exist" argument. I have proven the article is notable beyond a doubt, whether it passes WP:NOT is still unclear, but the current deletion rationale has been totally negated at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How have your sources in any way proven notability? Even in the case of the nom's rationale being faulty, there's been nothing asserted by those sources in the way of actual real-world relevancy beyond having plot summary in two Batman encyclopedias, which cover all manner of Batman-related content, regardless of notability, and dev info for specific movies. There's no notability asserted that is independent of its parent franchise in a manner that requires a split from any other article. I don't believe the nom is wrong either, since, per a search, the only mentions of the Batboat I could was this and references to unrelated boats named after the Batboat that don't show notability in the slightest, and I can find nothing in Books or Scholar that isn't just more Batman encyclopedias or unrelated objects named Batboat. Batman's Batboat literally has nothing in the way of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a page of text about the development and construction of the '66 series' Batboat in Batman: A Celebration of the Classic TV Series, a non-fiction non-primary reference that I added to the article. Toughpigs (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While helpful and good information, there's still not much showing a significant real world notability, given that this is one source discussing one film's production, which can easily be shifted to the main article for the film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with the technology section at Batman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet. Opinion is divided, primarily between Keep and Redirect/Merge to Batman#Technology.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayank Shekhar[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Subject did receive an award Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism. Source 1 is a book review, source 2 is a blog, source 3 has a passing comment made by the subject himself, source 4 is a review by subject himself, source 5 is a bio written by subject himself, source 6 is more on bio written by subject himself, source 7 is a link to Ramnath Goenka Award and source 8 is a book written by subject himself. Many unreliable and primary sources here. Draftify would be an option to improve the page with secondary independent sources and remove primary sources like the reviews by the subject himself and the interview with the subject.RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the award is judged significant enough, he could meet WP:ANYBIO. If his books have received coverage that is judged sufficiently significant (including the review you mention, or https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/name-place-animal-thing-of-bollywood-trivia-popular-culture/articleshow/52685080.cms or https://www.spectralhues.com/news/bookreview-name-place-animal-thing-mayank-shekhar/), he might also meet WP:AUTHOR. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOI makes it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I still do not find his books a significant monument or been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or won wide significant critical attention by well known peers and critics in secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOI falling under NEWSORGINDIA is an interpretation that I respect but with which I disagree in this case (not great journalism but not simply unreliable). The fact that the author of the book is one of the film critics of the Hindustan Times also indicates the article in the TOI should be rather independent.-- -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: The article from TOI doesn't look like a review at all; it seems more like a promotional piece or an announcement. Additionally, the article was published by PTI. I don't think he meets WP:AUTHOR. GrabUp - Talk 16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I should have mentioned that I hapeen to have been the creator of this page many years back. I actually didn't even remember I was the one who created it, as I've created numerous pages for notable Indian film critics. As someone who has worked on Indian cinema-related articles, I can attest to the relevance of his reviews on dozens of film articles, including several FAs. Him being an author as well as the winner of a notable award only consolidates my position. Shahid • Talk2me 18:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    interviews are primary sources that needs to cite the truth of the statements unless attributed. RangersRus (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RangersRus: Didn't undersrtand what you said here, please explain. Shahid • Talk2me 13:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are considered primary non-independent source. Independent sources helps to fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. If you use interviews as source for any statement made by the subject then the subject's statements needs to be cited with secondary independent source as well. Wikipedia:Independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: The award “Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards” is given to over 20 people every year. Do you think this is an exclusive award that can make recipients notable? GrabUp - Talk 16:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Closer. Keep votes are more focused on the subject's notability because of an award (not national award) but there is no argument on the unreliability of the sources on the page that are blogs, interviews with no secondary sources as attribution and self written reviews by the subject himself and part of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Two keep votes consider him notable but have no argument as to why and the two other keep vote (including the creator of the page) do not have opinion on the argument about the page and the unreliable sources that fails WP:GNG. I think the page is at best Delete but Draftify is also an option if there is any scope of improvement with secondary independent reliable sources. If this page stays a keep, then likely it opens a Pandora box to use unreliable sources like blogs and interviews and self published reviews on other pages or newly generated pages. RangersRus (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don’t understand why they are not providing good arguments for their Keep votes. It looks like @Atlantic306 is just here to go along with the majority. The question raises because how can he call it a ‘national award’? Additionally, they are posting low effort delete votes and not giving any counterarguments, which raises some questions in my mind. GrabUp - Talk 02:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Santa (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM as release date not announced. Existing sources are nowhere than procedural announcements only. WP:DRAFTIFY should be the better option. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films says:

    Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. ...

    Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.

    The sources verify that the film commenced principal photography in March 2023 in Atlanta, Georgia. The production is notable per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources.

    Sources

    1. Ho, Rodney (2023-03-16). "Jack Black, Farrelly Brothers reunite for 'Dear Santa' comedy shooting in metro Atlanta". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

      The article notes: "Jack Black is back in metro Atlanta to shoot the Farrelly Brothers Christmas-themed comedy “Dear Santa.” ... Black was seen in downtown Decatur last week shooting the film and he posted an Instagram photo from the set teasing the movie’s thematics in what appeared to be a Christmas village. ... Others in the cast include Robert Timothy Smith, Keegan-Michael Key, Brianne Howey, Hayes MacArthur, PJ Byrne, Jaden Carson Baker, Kai Cech and Austin Post."

    2. Kroll, Justin (2023-03-15). "Jack Black & The Farrelly Brothers Reunite For Christmas Comedy 'Dear Santa' At Paramount". Deadline Hollywood. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

      The article notes: "The movie centers on a young boy who, in writing his yearly note to Santa, mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Black recently teased the project on social media when he posted a photo of him posing with Christmas decorations with no context — it got everyone talking about what it could be."

    3. Couch, Aaron (2023-03-15). "Jack Black, Farrelly Brothers Team for Paramount's 'Dear Santa'". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

      Thea article notes: "After more than 20 years, Jack Black is reteaming with his Shallow Hal filmmakers the Farrelly Brothers for the Paramount comedy Dear Santa. The feature centers on a child who intends to write a letter to Santa Claus, but mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Bobby Farrelly will direct and produce, with brother Peter Farrelly producing along with Jeremy Kramer. The Farrelly brothers penned the script with Ricky Blitt, the writer behind the 2005 Johnny Knoxville feature The Ringer. The story came from an original idea from Dan Ewen, known for the John Cena comedy Playing With Fire."

    4. Bedard, Mike (2024-06-03). "Jack Black Is Unrecognizable As Satan For A New Christmas Movie". Looper. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

      The article notes: "Following his previous Christmas movie, 2006's "The Holiday" — where he was half of one of the most memorable holiday movie couples ever as Miles — Jack Black is dipping back into the Christmas spirit with a decidedly different project and character. Now fans can see him become unrecognizable as Satan on the set of the upcoming flick, "Dear Santa.""

    5. Hedash, Kara (2024-04-03). "Post Malone's Next Movie Is More Promising After Road House's $85 Million Success". Screen Rant. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

      The article notes: "Next up, Post Malone will star in the upcoming Christmas comedy Dear Santa alongside Jack Black and Keegan-Michael Key. It's unclear who Post Malone will be playing in Dear Santa, but the movie's premise will undoubtedly catch attention, considering it follows a young kid who accidentally writes a letter to Satan (Black) instead of Santa ahead of the Christmas holiday. The movie also reunites Black with the Farrelly Brothers, who collaborated together on 2001's Shallow Hal. Dear Santa will be another chance for Post Malone to showcase his comedic chops while also trying his hand at a Christmas movie for the first time in his acting career."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dear Santa to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: both keep votes appear to have missed the films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines part of NFILM. Is the production itself notable? I don't see any evidence that there is, which would make this an improper AfC acceptance and lead to redraftification until we have a release date. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ??? I don't think Cunard nor myself have missed that part, no. Cunard even quoted it VERBATIM in his !vote. Rather, maybe you missed the part in our !votes when we found it is notable, explained why and/or the evidence presented by Cunard above, present in the page or existing online Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cunard quoted it verbatim, yes, but his sources don't address it at all? All of these quotes he's pulled are basically "this movie is coming up! it's started shooting! here are some guys who are in it!" That's not the production of the movie being notable. That's simply people saying that the movie is currently being produced. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources discuss the film's production ("Jack Black is back in metro Atlanta to shoot the Farrelly Brothers Christmas-themed comedy"), its plot ("The movie centers on a young boy who, in writing his yearly note to Santa, mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead."), its director and producers ("Bobby Farrelly will direct and produce, with brother Peter Farrelly producing along with Jeremy Kramer."), who wrote the script ("The Farrelly brothers penned the script with Ricky Blitt"), and background about the script ("The story came from an original idea from Dan Ewen"). There is enough coverage about the film's background to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cunard, saying "Jack Black is in a place to shoot a film" is not discussing the film's production. For one, it's not discussing, in any sense of the word; it doesn't tell us anything about the film's production other than that it's happening. The "production is notable" part of WP:NFILM allows us to have articles on films that are not out and are not likely to come out, but are nonetheless notable. Like The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, which spent decades in development hell before finally coming out in 2018. The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996 film) is another example - you can see on that article that almost all of the content we have is about the production of the film. These are examples of films where the production is notable, which is completely different from "the movie was mentioned in the press while it was in production". -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an example of one that is still unreleased, as another example: Coyote vs. Acme. -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might have enoough to pass GNG, but it's simply a news story at this point. Might never get released. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep The film has notable individuals attached, including Jack Black and the Farrelly Brothers, and is backed by Paramount Pictures. However, its current state lacks comprehensive secondary sources that offer in-depth coverage. Improving the article with more references from reliable sources can bolster its credibility and notability. Yakov-kobi (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Categories[edit]

Templates[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Film&oldid=1234579788"