Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Teemu.cod (talk | contribs) at 22:35, 9 April 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Menzel.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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

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 03:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Menzel

Scott Menzel (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:NBLP and WP:GNG. The notability of this individual is not established independently of his company, the Hollywood Critics Association. All the coverage he has received is in context of a series of related controversies involving his company. In fact, about 70% of the content on this page is copied from the company's Wikipedia page. Notability is not inherited, please see WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO. Beyond these controversies, there is very little biographical information and that is cited to low-quality sources such as Muck Rack, alumni sites, and the 'about' page of a primary source. Teemu.cod (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd for deletion, supposedly by the article subject, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 16 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. 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)

Monsters (2004 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)

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 [1] [2]. 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]

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]

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

Evil Empire: A Talk by Chalmers Johnson (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 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]

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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Megalon

AfDs for this article:
Megalon (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)

No standalone notability from his debut film, and has barely appeared outside of it. Little to no sourcing exists beyond the article, which has been tagged for notability since 2022. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator, I'd be willing to let the draft replace the current article for the time being. While it's weak as it is right now, I feel as though it has potential for improvement, and can be re-evaluated at a later date. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:32, 10 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 Son of Godzilla. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumonga

Kumonga (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)

A small article for a rather minor kaiju in the Godzilla series. While Kumonga did have a spider named after it, any other commentary I can find is scattered and weak at best. There doesn't seem to be enough for a full article here. I'd suggest a redirect to Son of Godzilla, Kumonga's main film appearance. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct per Rorhacma's statements. Either reiteration of plot in the film and just WP:Fancruft. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. There isn't WP:SIGCOV about this fictional element's reception in the real world. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:12, 12 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 Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Caesar

King Caesar (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)

A rather short article, based around a minor character in the series. I found two book sources that give a good paragraph on him, but nothing more. Every news source is just Screen Rant, and I can't find anything bar the two above, and the few things you can scrape together really aren't enough for a whole article. I'd suggest a redirect to Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla, his debut film and most notable role. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:03, 5 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. Star Mississippi 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gem Souleyman

Gem Souleyman (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an actor, and added a review of a film he was in. This is just a few words of coverage, however. I cannot see any other coverage in reliable, independent sources which does more than verify that he was in the film. The article has been tagged as possibly not notable since 2013. I do not think he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 18:24, 5 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 Antiquization. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Prayer

Macedonian Prayer (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)

The video/film clearly lacks notability and the article appears to be originally researched for the most part. It is already appropiately covered in the article Antiquization. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:23, 5 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arutperunjothi

Arutperunjothi (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)

Horribly undersourced. I myself tried finding sources and the only two listed here were added by me, after tireless searching. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you search, you neeed search with the right keyword. Search like this Arutperunjothi 1971 movie and see how many sites and sources you see. Single Word Arutperunjothi means different meaning.
"Arutperunjothi 1971 movie" Alangar Manickam (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pretty sure Kailash29792 knows that, but thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:15, 4 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supir Istimewa

Supir Istimewa (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)

There is no evidence this film meets WP:NFILM. The only coverage I can find of this film is listings in film catalogs and promotion for the film. EDIT: To clarify a bit here, there are seven sources in this article. After a search I was able to find one more (Varia), although it is only mentioned once. That gives us 8 candidate sources. Of these, two are promotional (brochure, and De Locomotief). Two are film catalogs (Kristanto 2007, Biran 1979) and so do not establish notability, one is a list of an actor's filmography. This leaves two sources, Vara and Kentaja. The Vara article seems to only mention the film in passing but lets assume generously it passes. The last source is... weird (describing a film released 3 years before as a "new film"?) and frankly I wouldn't trust it, especially since it is unverifiable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nominator has failed to explain how the existing sources in the article do not demonstrate notability -- this is a common pattern with their nominations for Indonesian film articles. Jfire (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't cast aspersions here. I went over every single source here, in addition to looking at google books, and news. If you have any concerns about any source in particular that you may think is notable, please feel free to raise it, and I will tell you what my opinion on it was. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Indonesia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see no reason to dismiss the 2 books quoted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what two books specifically you are referring to here, could you elaborate? Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kristanto 2007, Biran 1979. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I actually looked at Biran 1979, and it only provides tangential coverage of the movie in two spots, both of which are talking about the careers of people who were involved in the other works. I don't have access to Kristanto 2007, but given its similar topical focus, I'm not very confident it will be much better. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think the Biran book What and Who: Film Figures in Indonesia, 1926–1978 is a solid source. I also think the nominator is being too hasty in dismissing the Kentjana review (New Film: Supir Istimewa). For one thing, the date isn't three years off — both the film and the review are dated 1954. And more importantly, the nominator's statement "I wouldn't trust it, especially since it is unverifiable" is not backed up by policy. I don't believe that Kentjana has been evaluated before as a reliable source or not, so "I wouldn't trust it" is a personal feeling rather than a rationale. Furthermore, WP:OFFLINE explains why offline sources are just as good as sources that are currently convenient to access online. The editor who added that information to the article apparently had access to a 1954 Indonesian film review, and I have no reason to suspect that editor of inventing the source out of thin air. Toughpigs (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about Kentjana, I screwed up the date there. Will strike that. I was more worried about the lack of catalog number than about the lack of access. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - When I get home from Toronto I can see if I still have my scans of the 1950s articles, but when I wrote the article I did have them. Furthermore, Persari distributed its films nationally, and frankly that alone satisfies WP:NFO, point 1 (Delpher may have listings of screenings if Allan wishes to verify, but their coverage is spotty for the 1950s). The fact that Indonesia has not digitized its magazines to the same extent as western nations is not evidence of a lack of notability; it is evidence that any sources available are going to be offline and difficult to verify for anyone without access to Perpusnas or Sinematek Indonesia. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the catalog sources: Biran 1979 is a compendium of brief biographies that he compiled for a government project, and is used here for citing biographic data (what the main stars did subsequently). Kristanto 2007 (and Filmindonesia.or.id, which is a digital continuation of the catalogue) is the most recent printed edition of Kristanto's film catalogue, and is used for uncontroversial information that is also supported by primary sources. Neither is used to ascribe notability to the film. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have copied the Kentjana source to Google Drive in a zip file, if anyone wishes to consult it (I also found an excellent image of Netty Herawaty behind the scenes on Lewat Djam Malam, so definitely worth the dive into these old rephotographs).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Chris explanations above. My capacity to access any sources available are going to be offline and difficult to verify for anyone without access to Perpusnas or Sinematek Indonesia is a time thing - due to my access to materials - weekly at the most.JarrahTree 05:07, 6 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. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nux (Mad Max)

Nux (Mad Max) (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)

Not notable. The sources in the Equipment section are about the vehicles in the movie in general, while the character creation section is just two bullet points trivia. In other words, no substantial information to warrant an article. He's just a supporting character after all. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's a book out there called Mad Max and Philosophy, and "Nux" is mentioned in it 37 times, which seems like a lot to just be happenstance from reciting the film's events. In the book Trauma and Disability in Mad Max: Beyond the Road Warrior’s Fury, "Nux" is mentioned 12 times. There seem to be more possible results in Google Books/Scholar to at least warrant a section on a list of characters, which I'm a little surprised we don't have, considering some characters that seem reasonably iconic (to me, at least). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:54, 4 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! 07:31, 10 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. There is a consensus that the articles have sources that establish notability. Behavior in this AFD has been poor. I think the first mistake was nominating this article just two hours after it was created. It probably should have been kept in Draft space until the fim was released and another solution, rather than coming to AFD, would have been to draftify the article. But after this AFD discussion was started, some editors let emotions dictate their comments which has the potential to derail a civil discussion. Then we get threats against the nominator which is totally out-of-line. Although I think it was premature to start this AFD, editors are required to assume good faith with all editors, especially those you disagree with. No one comes out looking good here and if I see behavior in an AFD descend into insults again, blocks will be issued. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 2: The Night Owl Bar Shootout

Silence 2: The Night Owl Bar Shootout (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)

Page says filming is complete but the reference used to support fails verification. Cannot find anything outside of WP:NEWSORGINDIA that would count towards notability. CNMall41 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Filmyworldwiki who is the author of this article, left a message on my talk page asking for advice. Inasmuch as this is not my area of knowledge, I would like to invite all who see this to help the author before trying to delete. They are genuinely looking for editorial guidance on this. — Maile (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66:, thanks for the comment. Is the !vote yours or the creator's? Just wondering if they had policy based reasoning for why it meets notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a long day on these various AFD noms. I put the Keep here, but I am not sure why at this point. Let's just leave it there for a day or so, and see how things go. — Maile (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Fair enough. Get some rest. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to ping me later if nobody else chimes in, and mine is the only comment here. — Maile (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to Comment. — Maile (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And as anticipated, IP has decided to remove maintenance templates without explanation. I would expect them to show up in the discussion next. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, are those templates needed if you take the page to Afd? The Notability template documentation even says: "The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.".... Emphasis mine. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even it film is released, notability is based on sourcing. If there is no current sourcing to support notability, draftify would be an WP:ATD until there is. However, many draftified film pages wind up right back here AfD when creator or another SPA moves it back to mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12 days. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 12 days is not a guarantee of notability. Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: This Afd comes either too late or too early. Draftify until announced release could be a solution but do that 6 days before the release of a film seems unfair when sources cover production. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tons of coverage" does not make something notable. That coverage must meet guidelines for reliable sourcing. The Hindu piece is under NEWSORGINDIA and I have removed it. The other with India Today is an announcement of the trailer. Hardly the coverage needed to make a film notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your removal, sorry. I couldn't find anything against The Hindu and India Today is not mentioned (in some threads of the noticeboard, the magazine is mentioned but consensus is not clear). Was your concern the fact that these sources were based on primary sources? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: you cannot at the same time reinstate the Primary sources template, remove primary sources mentioned in reliable sources and take the page to Afd, that's too much at the same time in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your refusal to adhere to NEWSORGINDIA and your refusal to take part in the linked discussion to overturn is concerning. I reverted as it is clearly against the consensus that decided NEWSORGINDIA. I am trying to AGF here but if you want to overturn consensus, you shouldn't try to do so through edit warring. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What refusal????? What are you talking about????? The Hindu is mentioned as RELIABLE in the link you provide. And India Today (the magazine) is NOT MENTIONED.....Oh, after all, I give up. Do as you like. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last time...because this is getting into DE territory...these sources fall under NEWSORGINDIA and were added to show notability. They CANNOT be used for notability based on NEWSORGINDIA. You were asked to take place in a discussion at WP:RSN but stated you would refuse to do so. If you don't like the consensus that is NEWSORGINDIA, feel free to opine in the discussion but please stop being disruptive. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final reply:
Where did I "state" I would "refuse" to take part in any discussion? When did I want to overturn any consensus? About what? (These are rhetorical questions, don't feel obliged to reply).
I DO like the current consensus, yes; not sure where I said I did not, and the said consensus (to which you yourself provide the link) says The Hindu is (very) reliable and does not mention India Today. If you want to change that, feel free. As for the 2 references you removed, sure they're not enough to attest notability if that's all there is, but why remove them from the page? I've asked this twice (here and on the page (edit summary), but instead of explaining what precisely you thought was wrong with them and clarifying, you preferred another approach, which leads us to the last point.
.....As for me being "disruptive"/"edit war", if you have anything of the kind to say, this is not the forum to do so, especially when it's not based on anything specific except the fact that I am clearly not sharing your opinion about what should be done with the page. Anyway, all is well, I won't visit nor edit it anymore, and, there too, feel free to add and remove anything that you want. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel I am casting aspersions, ANI is that way. I'll gladly take my medicine if it is determined as such. Consensus would govern that just like it has with NEWSORGINDIA. As far as refusal, here you state "too much time spent on this for me and I find it pointless for me to argue any further about the sources" despite being provided to this discussion link. Note that another user who also agrees with the interpretation of NEWSORGINDIA pinged you in that discussion and have not seen you respond. You have also been told in other replies about the discussion both at the RSN and the Indian film taskfoce and have not taken the chance. Remember that process is important.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a blatant misuse of a quote taken out of context, as everyone can verify ...my statement is about 3 sources on that page and nothing more and it comes after a long discussion (that took place on at least 3 different pages!!!! So much for refusal of discussion!!) Full quote: "Now please excuse me but I won’t reply nor comment here anymore: again, too much time spent on this for me and I find it pointless for me to argue any further about the sources. Remove, replace anything you wish; after all, it probably won’t be harmful and I am sincerely sure you will do it in good faith anyway." (emphasis mine on my own words) And a few lines above, I even said I would have a look at your proposal(s)!!!! As for being pinged in an ongoing discussion about the TOI, sure, maybe, but was urgent active participation compulsory? I am satisfied with the current consensus, as I said multiple times to....you. Nevertheless, I actually have read one of the discussions you mention and did not know there were 2 venues. I'll have a look when I have more time. This is really my final reply here. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing misused. I provided the full link to what you said. I took the part about you saying its pointless to discuss the references anymore. This was after I provided you with the link to the relevant discussion. Please, if you want to accuse me of not assuming good faith, please go to ANI as this has become ad nauseam. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The film has already been released and has reliable reviews (see reception section). @CNMall41: I feel that @Mushy Yank: is right in this case. Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA does not mention The Hindu and the fact that The Hindu requires subscription doesn't mean that specific article was paid for. Several newspapers like The New York Times [5] require subscription but that does not make them unreliable. Since the film has been released and has been the subject of reliable reviews [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], any further discussion is a complete waste of time.
Before you say that The Times of India is unreliable, remember that Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable. [11]. DareshMohan (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are reading NEWSORGINDIA wrong. It does not need to mention The Hindu. The publications it lists are EXAMPLES. Just because one is not listed as an example does not mean that NEWSORGINDIA would not apply. Again, refer to the linked discussions and feel free to opine if you feel it needs changed. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 is this too unreliable? Or you want just all to be US Media only? Just to be WP:CIVIL, I wanted to know what more you need to demonstrate notability of the subject that you have AfDed? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have already crossed the line with lack of civility so here we are. What is the date of that reference and what is the date of the nomination? This isn't about US Media or Indian Media so don't even go down that road. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion. Just because it has been released and there are reviews does not make it notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, actually. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't, actually. The reviews need to have SIGCOV in order to be used. Even if 1,000 reviews were released, if all of them are just a few sentences, they can't be used. Additionally, paid reviews don't count either (I think). Industrial Insect (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THEN READ THE REVIEWS ON THE PAGE....seriously....this relist is ...unnecessary .... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have made your case. Please allow others' voices to be heard @Mushy Yank Star Mississippi 03:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the second time, my input is the only thing you seem to notice in this discussion. I confess that I find this a bit strange. Anyway, you yourself had asked for "policy-based input" and, as I told you was very much expectable, now that the film was released, you have it. "While having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for potential editors.", says the guideline. Especially when a film is so clearly meeting various requirements. I have indeed no further comment and will not even bother changing my comment to Keep. If everyone else thinks we are not wasting other users' time and disheartening potential contributors or confusing the reader with that completely unnecessary deletion notice on the page, then, by all means, let's go for at least another round of policy-based Strong/Speedy Keep votes and more or less relevant general considerations about sources and guidelines. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -I don't understand for what this AfD is? CNMall41 is an experienced editor. Why this AfD? What more needed when tons of full length reviews are there?? This is really weird. And I don't believe that anyone with good understanding of WP:NFILM would come with a DELETE vote. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One more "final" comment :D. To be fair, the Afd was initiated when those reviews hadn't been published yet (12 days before (:D)). But you are right, withdrawing would have been appreciated (especially when the release made the rationale totally moot); then it was relisted (which was after release and publication of the reviews....; but I was accused of BLUDGEONing when I mentioned that reviews were more than enough (!))), so unless someone has the good idea to close this as SNOW, here we are.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This AfD is no different than this AfD. I could close this AfD as KEEP with WP:SNOW as non-admin closure. But I won't. Let this AfD to be an example of WP:CIR of the nominator. Probably they would end up at WP:ANI someday, someway. Twinkle1990 (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just stop. If either of you feel my conduct is in any way nefarious, please take it to ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 I assume this "Just stop." isn't per WP:CIVIL. Why? Had you? Even after 18 days? It is more than enough for you to withdraw. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to assume, I will make it clear. You made a comment about conduct instead of opining a rationale for keeping. Not civil, and in fact more of WP:BAITING. You obviously didn't based your comment on policy as you would see this was nominated before any reviews were added. And now, you make an accusation of incompetency. So, if you have an issue with my actions, take them to ANI. I would advise you to WP:DTS here though. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of a consensus for deletion. Discussion revolves almost entirely around the volume and usability of sources for this article, and while it can be said to hang on by the barest of threads in terms of quality of sources, it is not clearly established that it relies solely on impermissible sources. This may be revisited in the future, if sourcing improves, or if it becomes clear that sourcing cannot be improved. BD2412 T 20:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sohag Chand

Sohag Chand (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)

mostly run of the mill coverage that does not confer notability Sohom (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are more under WP:NEWSORGINDIA - non-bylined churnalism - unreliable to use for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines here. One of the primary reason the use of Times of India is discouraged is because it is known to accept payments from individual/companies in return for positive coverage. The Indian TV series business is well known for using money to prompt positive coverage (see the multitude of sock puppet rings surrounding this topic area). If this was indeed a actual full length film review, I would have happily accepted your argument. However, the sources are very short article that reeks of WP:CHURNALISM and paid coverage, which is something that TOI is well known for doing. I thus don't think the TOI sources are admissible from a notability POV. Sohom (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my interpretation of the guideline, that's the current consensus on two project pages and an exact quote that you can verify if you want. I know nothing about sockpuppets in the present case. As for all the sources being "very short", not sure you can say that. Anyway I wish to stand by my !vote, if you allow me, and will leave it at that. Also, a redirect to Colors Bangla or to the original series, should be considered anyway (both mention the series). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Entertainment4Reality regarding sockpuppets. Regarding the rest, I'll probably bring this up at WP:RSN. Sohom (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the interpretation that was reached by consensus. Relevant discussion if you choose to participate is here.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What interpretation? What consensus? I quoted (not interpreted) the current consensus (just open the links). Again, your link is to an ongoing discussion in which you both are (very) involved: nothing so far can be considered established by that other thread except the fact that the opinions you express here too are indeed your personal interpretation of the current consensus and/or the fact that you would like to establish a new one! How could that be of any weight concerning what should be decided here? It’s like wanting to change a guideline in real time so that you can delete a page that’s being debated... not really fair imv. Last words here: feel free to remove the sources that are judged unreliable if the page is kept and don’t forget to consider a Redirect if a standalone article is not deemed suitable. Again, here too, consider this my final reply. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing I linked to in this discussion is WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Is that not something that was determined through consensus? Seems to be unless there is something I missed. I went ahead and evaluated all the sources and listed in my !vote below.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Bengali One India, Bengali One India is part of OneIndia and pursuant to this relevant RSN discussion, “OneIndia and all its derivatices like Filmibeat, Gizbot, Etc, are content farms.”
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.
Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with your vote in the other deletion discussion, it is based on sourcing that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. I would invite you to take part in that discussion linked above. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only one of those with a byline is the first and only covers an outing that cast had, nothing in-depth about the show. The rest is clearly NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage in the Bengali Language the ABP Live Bangla example has covered the serial extensively have listed 22 articles.12 345 6 7 8910111213141516171819202122.Hindustan Times Bengali 3 articles 123Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:59, 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.
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! 23:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perang Sosoh Pedekik 1949

Perang Sosoh Pedekik 1949 (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)

There are only two sources for this film. One does not seem to mention the film by name, and one seems to be a local government website. Hence, I do not think it passes WP:NFILM, or WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [12]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian article and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [13] [14]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 7 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. Article says that the film was released in 2023, no date for an upcoming release so it might never be released. If it ever is released, this closure decision can be revisited. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaamana

Vaamana (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)

Setting aside the sock and likely UPE on this page, I do not see reliable sources verifying this was even released. There are some minor sources and one I found that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Nothing else. CNMall41 (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 7 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. There hasn't been partcipation in the last two weeks. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 05:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Down and Love

Fourth Down and Love (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 about a television film, not properly referenced as passing either WP:NFILM or WP:TVSHOW. As always, television films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of third-party media coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 29 March 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) 18:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The Southern Living article is "Checking out an exclusive clip". This is about the extent of all coverage I find, where to watch the thing. The TV Guide sourcing in the article is bare, so isn't a valid source. I don't mind any reviews other than what's given already, that's not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This [15], still doesn't add enough to the discussion to !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. White, Brett (2023-09-09). "Stream It or Skip It: 'Fourth Down and Love' on Hallmark Scores a Touchdown Thanks to Pascale Hutton and Ryan Paevey". Decider. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

      The review notes: "I’m happy to report that Fourth Down and Love offers no real surprises plot-wise and pretty much adheres to every trope you expect from both a Hallmark romance and a kid-centric sports movie. You bet Mike’s brother and sister-in-law try to set him up with Erin every chance they can get. You bet there’s a sweet and sassy grandma. There’s a fundraiser, a winning touchdown, hurt feelings and boosted morale, all that good stuff. I’m happy that Fourth Down and Love has all of that, because all of those plot points are fun to see and because it means I can focus this take on what the movie really excels at: character."

    2. Nowak, Laura (2023-09-09). "Fourth Down and Love Explores Second Chances at Love". TV Fanatic. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

      The review is listed on Rotten Tomatoes here.

      The review notes: "While we're unsure if this film was a one-off or part of a movie series, I'm crossing my fingers for more. I found the entire Hanson family to be charming, and I'd love to see Mike coach another season of the Whalers flag football team with assistance from Jimmy, Danielle, and Erin. Since this was the first adult male that gave Kiara any attention, I think we need more time to see how the family dynamics evolve now that Mike is her mom's boyfriend and her coach."

    3. Wang, K.L. Connie (2023-09-09). "An Awkward Second Meet-Cute Reunites a Single Mom and Pro Football Player in Hallmark's 'Fourth Down and Love'". Parade. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

      The article notes: "In Hallmark Channel's latest Fall into Love movie, a single mom runs into her old college sweetheart who is now a professional football player. ... Fourth Down and Love premieres on Saturday, Sept. 9 at 8 p.m. ET on Hallmark Channel."

    4. Baer, Rebecca Angel (2023-09-07). "Check Out An Exclusive Clip From Hallmark's Football-Themed 'Fourth Down And Love'". Southern Living. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

      The article notes: "Hallmark is giving all fans a big treat with their newest flick in their Fall into Love programing, Fourth Down and Love starring Pascale Hutton and Ryan Paevey. Paevey plays professional football star Mike Hansen who suffers an injury that sidelines him for a month. Mike’s brother Jimmy (Dan Payne, Outrunners) convinces Mike to come home while he’s recovering."

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

    Cunard (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of newly found sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still hoping for an assessment of newly found sources and whether or not they make a difference as the deletion rationale states the article is not properly referenced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 19 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. The consensus I see is that the existing sources are sufficient to establish notability by the guidelines that exist for this article subject. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney's Funny Factory

Walt Disney's Funny Factory (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 also nominating:

Walt Disney's It's a Small World of Fun! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Walt Disney's Timeless Tales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unremarkable and inconsequential DVD compilations. --woodensuperman 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me repeat again; there needs to be more than reviews for this to stay up. I don't look at just reviews when I determine deletion/keep, because there is well more to an article than just reviewing a work, and I just can't see beyond reviews for a basic consumer DVD of cartoons whose purpose was more distraction than collection. Nate • (chatter) 23:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only direct you to the guidelines again. That these compilations were made more for distraction than collection is possible (and some reviewers concur with you, btw) but that's not exactly the point, I'm afraid. I really have no further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For information: On 2nd thoughts and after further checking, I undid the redirect of the 4th Deproded page I mentioned in my !vote (was far from perfect) and moved the page (the name is now EXTREMELY generic but that's the actual title of the compilation series). Just saying this here for information as maybe the nominator might wish to know. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: These are absolutely run-of-the-mill products. They exist, but they are not notable. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    they are not notable. Sources on the page and presented here by Somebodyidkfkdt tend to prove just the opposite. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are WP:ROTM product reviews. --woodensuperman 09:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're reviews= significant coverage from reliable independent sources. And that's the requirement on Wikipedia. And no, on top of that, sorry, I don't think you can call them "run-of-the-mill", especially after reading the essay whose link you provided and that I am inviting you to read (again) too. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These reviews are not the WP:SIGCOV required to demonstrate notability, they are just run of the mill product reviews. These are inconsequential DVD compilation releases which, I'm sorry, have no place in an encyclopedia per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are some DVD and Blu-ray box sets which are critically acclaimed and have a tremendous amount of coverage in reviews, etc., but for the most part, even these do not warrant articles. These trivial little entries in the Disney catalogue just simply aren't worthy of inclusion. --woodensuperman 10:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply. Your opinion about those compilations was clear from the start. These reviews are significant coverage and denying it is almost bizarre, I think. You don't need positive reviews (let alone, "critical acclaim") nor "tremendous amount of coverage" to prove something is notable on WP. You need multiple reviews. Some have been presented. Calling the subject "trivial", "unremarkable", etc., expresses, I'm afraid, only your opinion about the compilations, and has little to do with their notability (according to WP). My personal opinion about them has, for example, nothing to do with my !vote. I have no further comment (as I fear I could only repeat what I have already said) and I only wish that, next time you take an article to AFd or ProD one, you perform a (better) BEFORE. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are trivial and unremarkable. It's not like we're talking about the Walt Disney Treasures series here. --woodensuperman 11:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. Again, this discussion should be based on what the sources can establish not the editors' opinion of the article subject. Please assess the sources brought up over the course of this nomination period.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::Nonsense Cunard. That's never been consensus opinion at AFD regarding articles in the creative arts. Critical reviews in independent secondary sources are exactly the type of RS required for articles on all types of works of art.A review is SIGCOV, and if we have multiple reviews it passes GNG. period.4meter4 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

?..... That's precisely what Cunard is saying.......I think you've misread the comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct, Mushy Yank. I agree with what 4meter4 said about multiple critical reviews meaning a work of art passes the general notability guideline. I quoted those sentences written by editors supporting deletion to say those views are not supported by policies or guidelines. Cunard (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I must have read something wrong when I was tired. Apologies.4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 9 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

Categories

Templates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Film&oldid=1218132719"