Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

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

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Film AfDs

Scan for Film Prods
Scan for Film template TfDs

Related deletion sorting

Film

Love in Ukraine

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

This film lacks significant coverage in indepedent secondary sources. References are republished agency feeds (e.g., ANI/PTI) syndicated across multiple outlets without original reporting. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Articles by a reputable news agency such as PTI are valid references. I think the references, taken as a whole, add up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (film)

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

Non notable unreleased film. Most sources are not independent of the subject. Production has been halted due to unavailability of costars [1]. No update since November of 2024. Draftify if release is still possible, somehow. DareshMohan (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the lead actors, this film would be notable if released. But production appears to be abandoned, at least for now, and the existing coverage doesn't meet WP:NFF. Also fine with draftifying if production resumes. hinnk (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. hinnk (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Porky's Pimpin' Pee Wee

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

This film was made as an ashcan copy to retain the rights to the 1981 film Porky's. The article for the 1981 film does have a section that includes a line about this ashcan copy. Reference 1 of this article doesn't load. Ref 2 and 3 are accessible. Ref 4 is dead. There is no plot information or other sources from Google I was able to find that are reliable, unfortunately. Due to a lack of reliable sources I believe a redirect to the 1981 film's remake section is best, failing that, deletion. 11WB (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 11WB (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm searching, but what I'm finding mentions it in relation to the overall series or the lawsuit. This mentions it was a remake of the first film and it's already mentioned in the remake section - I think we could probably justify merging some/most of the production and release section into the remake section and then redirect there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Porky's#Remake. The coverage for this is fairly light and most of it discusses it in relation to the film series and its status as an ashcan copy. I wasn't able to find any sort of review for the flick that could be used on Wikipedia. I think we could selectively merge this into the Pork's article without really losing anything. Even the production and release section is more about them trying not to lose the rights to the original series than filming for the movie itself. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged content over. I really don't think there's anything to gain by keeping this as a separate article. Maybe if someone is able to work some magic and find reviews, but offhand this was very solidly ignored. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however if there are no substantial sources for the movie itself, a redirect is likely the best choice. 11WB (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having read your expanded section on the 1981 article's remake section, I think a simple redirect will suffice now as the merging is by all accounts taken care of. 11WB (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I think it works very well there as a subsection. It also helps to give more context to the Howard Stern attempt. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Van Dorn

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

Does not meet WP:NF, lacking significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Sources currently included are simply database listings and not actual coverage BOVINEBOY2008 09:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't find enough to establish where this passes NFF - it was made and it screened at Cannes, but didn't gain any sort of reviews to help establish notability. Nor did it screen in the parts of Cannes that would give notability for being part of that program (ie, Un Certain Regard). So a redirect sounds like the right option here, but we have two options. The first is to redirect to the director, Shane Stanley. The second is to redirect to Earl_Van_Dorn#Legacy, where there's a paragraph describing it. Offhand my thought is that it should redirect to Van Dorn, since the article has some info about it. I don't think that anything needs to be merged in, as the legacy section already has enough information to give context and I don't know that a legacy section on a biography would really be a good place to list filming times and locations. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be public knowledge, but the Cannes Film Festival was just last month, and reviews don’t typically come directly from that festival because it is technically an industry-buyer’s festival. While reviews can emerge from it, it often takes several months. Within that time, it’s common for platforms and distributors to license films, and that is followed by reviews. Cannes is not a "sink or swim" event where lack of immediate reviews indicates failure or irrelevance. That’s not at all how it works.

This film features industry-recognized actors such as D.B. Sweeney, Joe Lando, John James, and David Meadows. Its director, Shane Stanley, holds two Guinness World Records for "longest number one of a film" and is profiled on IndieActivity (see https://www.indieactivity.com/six-days-in-evergreen-by-shane-stanley-to-debut-at-cannes/ speaking about both the film and it being at Cannes festival. The film The Legend of Van Dorn is also listed on Stanley’s official website under his credits: https://www.shanestanley.net/about.

Coverage from Main Street Maury, the local media outlet near the filming location in Tennessee, includes a full report/article describing the film’s production and significance: https://mainstreetmediatn.com/articles/e-newsletter-mainstreetmaury/a-kind-of-mini-hollywood-confederate-general-biopic-wraps-in-columbia-raising-the-towns-cinematic-profile/. This is not a database listing — it’s coverage of a major SAG film that wrapped in Tennessee.

Additionally, the film’s composer, Steve Dorff, includes The Legend of Van Dorn in his list of film credits on his official website — alongside major Hollywood films like Tin Cup, The Last Boy Scout, Maverick, and Every Which Way But Loose with Clint Eastwood. Other names include Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, Russell Crowe, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bruce Willis, Halle Berry, Jodie Foster, Mel Gibson, Warren Beatty, and many others. You can see his website listing here: https://www.stevedorff.com/motion-pictures.

To recommend deletion based on a supposed lack of coverage — when there is already documented media coverage, a Cannes Film Festival screening, and participation from industry-recognized contributors seems clearly premature. Many films on Wikipedia have had far less in place when their articles were first created.

The article reflects a film with demonstrated notability, industry recognition, and verified distribution (Artist View Entertainment https://www.artistviewent.com/films/detail?id=147ef3c1-56ee-ef11-82a3-0e4a64f8a357). With a Cannes Film Festival screening, press coverage, and a compelling historical subject portrayed by recognizable talent, it clearly meets the threshold for inclusion. Deletion would not only overlook its cultural and historical relevance, but also contradict the very purpose of preserving notable works in film and history. Historytenn (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the first point - most media outlets will post their reviews while a film festival is still running. Big festivals like Cannes draw a lot of attention, so they know that posting a review while the festival is still running will gain more attention. While yes, some outlets will prioritize the high ticket films and save the others for later reviews, by large those tend to get released closer to the festival screening in order to capitalize on the Cannes name. It's not impossible for a film to receive a festival review a month later, but it does become less likely because most reviewers want to review something while it's fresh in their minds, especially if the film is not readily available to them for a re-watch and refresh.

To also add on to this point, we cannot base notability on reviews that have not been posted. Maybe reviews from RS will get posted next week, but then again maybe they won't. We can't base notability on coverage that does not exist during the AfD's run. If this was say, the week before Cannes then maybe the AfD could be relisted for an additional week to see if reviews would come in, but the film has already premiered and there are no reviews. I must also acknowledge what duffbeerforme has stated - this might have screened adjacent to Cannes without being part of the festival's official selections. That doesn't mean that the film won't receive reviews - there are a number of films that have been screened through things like Marché du Film and received scores of reviews, but it can make it less likely.

As far as the notability of the people involved in the film, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. What this means is that even if the people involved are notable, that does not make the film automatically notable. A notable cast and crew can increase the chances of coverage, but it is never a guarantee.

Finally, keep in mind that this AfD is to determine if the film meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The absence of sources that fulfill this criteria doesn't mean that the film is a failure or that it can't go on to receive coverage. It just means that it does not pass notability guidelines at this point in time. There are many films that have failed notability guidelines, sometimes for years, and then gone on to receive attention later on down the line. I've run into many topics (film, people, events, etc) that are of obvious importance, but fail notability guidelines because they just don't have the type of coverage Wikipedia requires. I remember volunteering at the Library of Virginia and running into hundreds of cases. They were of obvious importance to the Library, as they considered the person/topic important enough to archive, but there just wasn't coverage. So I understand your frustration, but none of this is a comment on the quality of the film. I'll go over the sources on this AfD's talk page, to explain why they do not meet NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I must also ask - are you involved with the film? While I was searching I found some slight evidence that you might have been involved, but put this aside as I found it to be too light. With your response and as your more major edits have been about the film, I must ask - what is your involvement with the film? Were you part of the cast/crew or someone who was asked to come write about the film on Wikipedia? Even if your involvement was say, checking historical accuracy on the film, this must be disclosed. You can edit with a conflict of interest, but it must be transparent. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to show that it's extremely common for reviews to come out during Cannes - this article by Variety was posted the day after Cannes finished. It contains links to reviews posted by Variety staff during the festival, typically the day after the respective film premiered (ie, during the festival itself). Deadline also posted a list of the Cannes reviews that they released during the festival. Someone for the New Yorker did post a ranking of the films the day after as well. This reddit thread even references some of the reviews some of the films are getting, particularly Alpha.

It's extremely common for reviews to post during the film or very immediately after. Now, some films will get few or no reviews and then gain coverage once it receives an official release by way of theatrical, VOD, or similar, but that is separate. Media outlets are typically not going to see something at Cannes , review it, and then sit on the review until months later. To restate what I said earlier, we cannot judge notability on the idea that it might get reviews or that it's likely to get more coverage. It's entirely possible it could, but it's also very possible that it could officially release and then get no attention. If the film was not an official part of Cannes, as has been suspected as there's no mention of this film on the Cannes website and searching Google for the film's title and Cannes produces nothing from Cannes itself, but was rather shown at one of the festivals or events that tend to also run alongside Cannes, then the changes of this happening rise quite a bit. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the state where it was filmed (Tennessee) and started hearing about it being filmed here last summer. I majored in history and enjoy Civil War history (probably a little too much) so I have an interest in it and it's local to me. I am also extrememly familiar with Earl Van Dorn and his assasination since it happened in Tennessee (why the movie was filmed here). I've heard about that all of my life. So it made sense to me to make a page about the film. I don't see that as odd. Historytenn (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ReaderofthePack, The claim of screening at the Cannes Film Festival is deceptive at best. The so called Artist View Entertainment lineup is not part of the actual festival. Artist View is a film distributor that looks like just shows their own films while attending festivals. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, probably Marché du Film. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a mention here that it screened at the TV Movies Screenings Festival. There's mention here that someone from AVE was at Cannes with the movie, but that could mean anything from it screening somewhere in or around the festival or that he was shopping it around. It's pretty common for people to shop non-screening or even as of yet uncreated films at film festivals. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a free venue for promoting upcoming films. Lacks independent coverage. notability is not inherited from people paid to work on the film. That it might get reviewed in the future is crystal ball speculation. The only reason it is currently mentioned in the Earl Von Dorn article is because the person who created this article spammed it all over the place and if this film is not notable then that mention is undue and should be removed so opposing a redirect there. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's some mild coverage, generally local, so I think at least a sentence is probably warranted. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uppu Kappurambu

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

Sources are primarily press releases, passing mentions and non-independent sources. Devdiscourse.com has no byline, newsrelease.in is a press release site and the articles published on June 16th and 19th are also press releases. Similarly, Amazon’s announcements on March 19th and 20th are promotional materials about their lineup. None of the sources provide in-depth coverage of the film’s production, as they are generated from the trailer launch. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira Thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to review the Uppu Kappurambu article again. I understand the concerns regarding the initial batch of sources being primarily promotional in nature. To address that, I’ve now added new references from reliable, independent, and well-established publications, including, Filmfare, Deccan Chronicle, The New Indian Express,The Times of India. These updated sources provide independent editorial coverage of the film and go beyond simple announcements or press releases. They discuss the film’s premise, cast, production details, and streaming release, contributing significantly to establishing notability under Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. Kindly requesting a fresh look at the article in light of these improved sources. If there's anything specific that still needs to be addressed, Please do let me know, I'm open to work on it!

Cheers! Thesazh (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two latest sources you added do not have a byline. The article from newindianexpress.com was provided by Press Trust of India, indicating that it is a press release. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira the coverage does not appear to be promotional in tone but rather provides factual reporting on the film’s release, plot, cast, and context within the industry, which I believe contributes to demonstrating notability, That said, I am continuing to look for more independent reviews or interviews that provide deeper coverage. I’d be grateful for any further guidance or specific types of sources you’d recommend in strengthening the article’s standing.

Thanks! Thesazh (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are mainly promotional press releases or otherwise unreliable (NEWSORGINDIA). Would recommend draftifying as an atlernative to deletion but creator objected it to by moving back to mainspace prior to their block for undisclosed paid editing. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RIPfest

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

(I hope this tags you @Veko)

An expired PROD resulted in this page being deleted 9 days ago. An IP asked for it back saying, "One reason I am asking for r4econsideration[sic] is that the founders - now emmy winning producers - are considering a new, rebooted RIPfest for 2026". I decided to let them have a week to make some edits to show some kind of notability or movement on notability. The only edit since has come from Veko adding an under construction tag, since it is now ineligible for PROD I am bringing it here. Moritoriko (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and United States of America. Moritoriko (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT – Clearly WP:PROMO. Svartner (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just for incoming people's awareness, there's another festival by the same name that focuses on a specific horned toad. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the festival had taken place in one set location this could probably redirect to the applicable state in List of film festivals in the United States, however it looks like this took place in multiple states. The history section is unclear whether or not it's the non-profit that turned into a NYC-based film group or if it's RIPFest that did. The language implies that it's the non-profit. The website comes up with warnings not to click through so I'm not going to risk my computer opening that up. If anyone else wants to check, please do.

Reasons for the redirect is that there are two sources, one obviously better than the other. There's some mild offhand mention here and there, all trivial passing mentions at best. The list page also doesn't appear to be limited to notable festivals only. Reasons against the redirect is that the list page is already pretty lengthy and the coverage isn't that extensive. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, California, and New York. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett James

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this BLP about an actor, and moved two external links to references in the article. These are only mentions of his name in credits, however, and I have not found significant coverage to add. He does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. He has been a producer on films which have won awards, and has won a stage award, the ADA Award, but these don't appear to be notable awards, and I can't find significant coverage of him in the context of them. The refs before I added two were to IMDb, Wikipedia, and two film festivals, which does not meet WP:THREE. Article has been tagged with notability concerns since 2017. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not finding anything - most of his roles are smaller and less likely to gain mention in sourcing. I was trying to find coverage for his theatrical performances, but I'm not finding much there either. With the awards, it looks like those were "best film" type awards for movies he produced. However the issue with awards as producer is that it's harder to establish their role in the production. Some producers are extremely involved and important to the final product, whereas others aren't really "hands on" with the production outside of funding and initial work. Of course then we have to look at whether or not the awards are notable enough to meet NCREATIVE/NACTOR either partially (count towards but not enough on its own to keep) or fully (enough on its own). I've always thought a good rule of thumb is to see if the awards website lists the producer. If so, then it could be usable (assuming the award is notable), if not it likely isn't.

In any case, with the awards, two of them are known vanity awards (Accolade Competition, Impact Docs Award). Nashville Film Festival and the Beverly Hill Film Festival look like wins from them would probably be usable. Tacoma Film Festival is smaller, but probably OK. The other wins are questionable as far as notability goes and the others are nominations so it's irrelevant whether they are notable or not - none of them are at the level where a nomination would be considered noteworthy. That's limited to things like the Oscars.

I guess the question here is whether or not his producing role was large enough for him to inherit notability from the movies in a similar way that one would as an actor or director. Executive producer credits would probably count, but the generic producer credit is where there's pause. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of theater reviews. Only three though, which is technically enough I guess to pass NACTOR. I think between that and the kind of nebulous producer notability, that might be enough to keep. I'm not 100% so I am not making an argument for or against at the moment. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What info would you like from me? Emmett James film Life and Larry Brown was short listed for an Academy Award. He has produced a ton of films that are on Netflix, amazon and Hulu where he is the main producer. He is one of the heads of the producers guild of America for documentaries. He does conventions around the world for his acting credits including TITANIC and has appeared as a guest speak at comic con in San Diego for Star Wars. Im a little confused to why this is even a discussion to be honest Savinghollywood (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aapa Shameem

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

YouTube series that fails notability guidelines. Sourcing is unreliable or social media links. Twice decliend at AfC and an attempted move back to draftspace as an WP:ATD was obejcted to by creator. CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Internet, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the AfC reviewers @Gheus: and @WikiMentor01: who declined the draft previously. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being a publisher of the article, wants to correct certain points mentioned by nominator as rationale for deletion.

It is not a You Tube series. It was aired on a national broadcast network, confirmed here by DAWN as network and its air time is mentioned right next to its title.
There is not a single social media link presented as a reference in the article. Also, sources mentioned such as DAWN, The Nation, Samaa TV, Independent Urdu, The Express Tribune, BizAsiaLive (UK-based TV ratings), and ARY News, all are editorially independent platforms with established reputations, satisfying the requirements of WP:RS.

Now addressing the WP:GNG and WP:NENT, a television program is considered notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple published sources that are independent of both the subject and each other. The sources listed covers Aapa Shameem from several perspectives regarding its casting, thematic depth, audience reactions, debut performances (Zoha Tauqeer is the main lead of the show and makes her debut with the show, therefore, few sources emphasizes on her specifically), and overall reception. Notably, DAWN’s critical column “The Tube” and The Express Tribune’s YouTube trend (as serial is uploaded on You Tube by the broadcast network official channel) analysis offer analytical content, not just superficial mentions or press releases. These types of coverage meet the threshold for non-trivial, secondary analysis. More over, presented below are the sources covering the show significantly and are indepedent of the subject.

South Asia - The article is published in a regional magazine which highlights the plot, cast and broadcast details of the show.
[Independent Urdu - Here the article is in local language and title of the source is translated as "Aapa Shameem: Good for few and Bad for the others". Independent Urdu is the Pakistani variant for the british The Independent.
DAWN - Gives an insight of the show confirming the broadcast and theme of the show. Not just a trivial mention.

Like mentioned above there are other sources besides them as well which makes the article notable in context of WP:GNG and WP:NENT.Reshmaaaa (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I am satisfied with the sources presented by Reshmaaaa and their analysis and think this article about a popular show with a notable cast can be kept in the Main space as it meets the notability requirements.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Coverage are entirely biased and have promotional tone. clearly lacks neutrality. Most are in the form of releases or passing mentions. Not a single in depth article to support notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please mention which sources are just passing mentions? Are you saying DAWN and Independent have been biased while publishing with regards to their editorial standards? Do you think [2] and [3] are not in depth? Reshmaaaa (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis table would be useful at this point in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RajaSaab

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

Fails WP:NFF. Attempted to move to draft space but that was objected to. Users keep changing the name and redirect names as well. Film was supposed to be out in April hence why I did not send to AfD sooner. Now it has been delayed yet again with an "anticipated" date of December 2025. Sources are all the normal promotional announcements you would get for a film, but nothing notable about the production that I can find to allow it to meet NFF. CNMall41 (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There appears to be sufficient coverage of this film in reliable, independent sources, and additional coverage is likely as the release date approaches. This will support the article’s verifiability and provide more material for improvement and citations. Per Wikipedia:Notability (films), a film can be considered notable even prior to release if it has received significant attention from reputable media outlets. Therefore, the subject meets the notability criteria for retention. Amadavadi (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? "Additional coverage" in the future equates to WP:TOOSOON. Yes, a film can be considered notable prior to the release but needs the sourcing to show it. The sourcing here is all your general announcements associated with an upcoming film. What about the production is notable as that is what needs to be seen to meet WP:NFF. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deleting the page even after the teaser?

It seems the movie fanwars reached wikipedia too. 2409:40F4:24:7D54:A0A0:E393:F3B6:5FC3 (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The teaser was released today ইমরান ভূইয়া (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. —Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not see anything in WP:NFILM that says notability is based on a teaser. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is doing typical fanwar on wikipedia page. 2409:40F4:24:7D54:A0A0:E393:F3B6:5FC3 (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

”Keep” Notable movie with reliable sources. Teaser just dropped. It could be improved with references. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up

Sounds familiar. Please see WP:ATA. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a telugu from Andhra, I can see that all the mainstream Telugu newspapers have carried articles about the film apart from some notable national media outlets like the HIndu, India Today, Times of India etc. I believe it passes GNG. Davidindia (talk)

Which sources again? No one has been able to provide those as of yet. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know, but I assume they are referring to print media. Ike Lek (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then hopefully they are able to answer about the sources claimed "apart from some notable national media outlets like the HIndu, India Today, Times of India etc." Which notable national media outlets and were are the links? Which ones are not NEWSORGINDIA, press releases, or promotional churnalism? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The shooting set is confirmed to be the biggest for a horror movie in India. The makers claim it is the largest indoor movie set in the world, but I have not looked into how true that is. I think a case can be made that, even in the unlikely situation The RajaSaab never sees the light of the day, it would be notable as an unreleased film. 2001:8F8:172B:3F78:2D8E:A230:148B:5E00 (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible. And at least someone is providing references with their contention so thank you for that. If the claim is true, it may "possibly" be notable but it is just a claim with churnalised sources at the moment.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is well sourced and on track to release this December. It does meet WP:NFILM as it is a tentpole and not an indie or art film. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on the sourcing from someone. Can you point to the significant coverage showing WP:GNG as it definiately does not meet WP:NFF as an unreleased film. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has good sources along with one of the top Indian star in cast Prabhas, so why it should stay in draft? Also it's beyond my understanding that an article with 50+ sources, Top notch indian actors and sequel to 2019 blockbuster film is still in the draft section Draft:War 2 (2025). The production of film is huge it was shot in various overseas countries, article is well sourced, production is YRF, release date in August, teaser already released! Then what's the issue! MNWiki845 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2025 (IST)

It should stay in draft because it does not meet WP:NFF. Nothing in notability guidelines that says it receives inherent notability for having good sources or top Indian stars. If you are comparing to War 2, that draft has way better sourcing and at this point could be argued that meets WP:GNG. So the question is why should that stay in draft if this one is live? Also, still waiting on the source assessment which no one has yet to provided. The IP vote above is the only one that has made a claim of notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Principal photography is complete, so the film doesn't fall under the NFF's restriction on covering projects that haven't begun filming. There are 35 sources in the article. GNG is established. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth request for sourcing. 35 sources, all of which are promotional, NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't non-RS. Indian sources are going to cover Indian entertainment; using NEWSORGINDIA to treat them like they're inherently suspect will leave our film articles empty. WP:SATISFY. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were all NEWSORGINDIA and no, you are not obligated to WP:SATISFY. The vote just leans more towards WP:ATA. Sources do not need to be non-Indian sources, but they do need to be something more than your typical press announcements, churnalism, promotional material, or unreliable sourcing. That is why [[WP:NFF] exists. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Here are a few references regarding the production of the film. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. I hope these references will be good enough for the article to satisfy WP:NFILM as well WP:GNG.

BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the considerable number of keep !votes, this is an odd discussion with at least one sockpuppet weighing in. We need to hear from more experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rowdy Rocky

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

Non notable film. Doesn't satisfy WP:NFP or WP:GNG. Afstromen (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Asia, and India. Afstromen (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Bhojpuri films of 2022.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Bhojpuri films of 2022. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 15:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaila (film)

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

Doesn't pass WP:NFP and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Afstromen (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Asia, and India. Afstromen (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could we redirect this entry to the section in the list List of Hindi films of 2025#January-–March where it is mentioned? One of the sources seems sufficiently significant and reliable to allow that and some members of the cast are notable. Thank you.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some discussion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Guards

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, only 1 review. Nothing supporting notability in the other language wikis. Nothing else found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 01:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, South Africa, and Germany. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, not notable enough 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:78AB:A3D3:59C3:AFC9 (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found an additional 82 word review in an Australian newspaper[14] Jahaza (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is some coverage in Italian (one of the leads is Italian). Arguably the "best" is this. There are several reviews by freelance/amateur critics, too. I could not find anything from major sources, but I didn't dig too deep either. Ostalgia (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as well as the Filmdienst review cited in the article there is this other archived German review here. I'm not familiar with the site so it's a weak keep, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Definetively can find more sources. I'm not familiar at all with this. Earth605 (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baand

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a not yet released film, not properly sourced as the subject of sufficient production coverage to pass WP:NFF in advance of release. As always, the rule is not that every film is automatically entitled to an article the moment it enters the production pipeline -- generally speaking, a film is not notable until it has been released and been reviewed by professional film critics, and has to show a significant volume and depth of production coverage to claim notability in advance of release.
But this is referenced entirely to three short blurbs about the release of its promotional poster, and all three of those short blurbs are worded virtually identically despite coming from three supposedly different sources -- meaning that either one publication originated the piece and the other two just reprinted it, hence adding up to one GNG-worthy source, or all three publications essentially just published the producer's own self-created press release, hence adding up to zero GNG-worthy sources.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after the film has been released, if it garners enough critical attention to pass GNG on proper third-party coverage -- but three virtually identical articles about the release of a film poster is not enough to get an as yet unreleased film over the notability bar all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Agree with nom; appears to be WP:TOOSOON and maybe reliable sources/reviews will emerge with release in not too far future WeWake (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Destinyokhiria (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: seems fine. This is PROMO at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2025 (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.

Oyayubihime (film)

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

Unfortunately, after looking around for sources to the best of my ability, searching under both English and Japanese names, I can't find any good sources for this film. The other-language equivalents of this article appear about as barren of useful references as this is (although the Japanese article is about the anthology series of films that this is part of, rather than the film by itself). The only reference I do know of is this article about Saeko: Giantess Dating Sim which briefly mentions it, but obviously that doesn't pass SIGCOV. If anyone can find any good sources, I'd be happy to see this kept, but as the situation stands I'm not seeing it. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Film, Television, Visual arts, Popular culture, and Japan. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and refocus on Kowai Dōwa. It will make the Japanese interwiki more consistent. The renamed page can be expanded with sources in Japanese about this TV series, of which this is a part. All actors of this "episode" (but one) have a page on the Japanese Wikipedia. OR redirect to Kankurō Kudō#Writer (Television), a section in the article about the screenwriter. OR merge into Thumbelina#Live action, a section in the article about similar adaptations of the original tale. Thank you.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please offer one suggestion, not three. Also, the outcome of an AFD can not be Rename or Move as that is an editorial decision that editors must discuss. So, if that is the result you want, argue to Keep and then a Move can be discussed on the article talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that relisting comment was partially addressed to me, so I'll reply. "Rename" seems to be a perfectly valid and pretty standard AfD !vote. As it implies refocusing the article on a broader subject matter that includes the topic discussed here, I think it is best to leave my !vote the way I originally conceived it. "Rename" implies a Keep, yes, but I assume any good faith closer will understand that. As for one suggestion not three, please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#One bolded vote, which clearly states:

Editors may leave multiple recommendations as alternatives when unsure, for instance "Merge or redirect".

Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long Key Awards

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

Promotion for non notable film awards. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Some sources used don't actually verify claims. Notability is not inherited from people/films they give awards to. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. Created by the same group as run Actress Universe Awards, also up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actress Universe Awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and New York. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned in the other AfD, we establish notability for awards in two ways: either coverage of the award as a whole or reprints of the winners in independent, reliable sourcing. I searched for this one under its current name as well as its original name. I found some light coverage, but not really anything in places that would be considered RS on Wikipedia. When the site is potentially usable, the coverage is so light that it's not really something we could use to establish notability. Most of the time it's mentioned in passing in relation to a film or person. For what it's worth, I do think that they're trying to run an honest awards ceremony - this doesn't appear to be a vanity award offhand. It's just that the RS outlets haven't really taken any notice of the awards.

Maybe there's coverage in Russian, as the company appears to be run out of Moscow, but as I'm not fluent in Russian and don't have the awards names in Russian I have no way of checking this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Voice Awards

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

Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources covering this. (The article on Lithuanian Wikipedia is also unreferenced) ApexParagon (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Television, Awards, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sudip Pandey

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is may not notable according to WP:NACTOR and does not meet the requirements for WP:SIG in reliable, independent sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Asia, and India. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep despite the earlier deletion. The coverage of his death seems to just barely qualify him. Pinging Zuck28 who added Pandey to the List of Bhojpuri actors in January. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the nominator has a very low understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines. They’re just nominating random articles created by me as an act of retaliation because I nominated a few of the articles they created about non-notable subjects. Their rationale for the AFD is unclear as, why they believe it should be deleted, anyways I leave this matter for fellow editors.

Thank you for pinging me.

Zuck28 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable actor, Mentions, unreliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominator is currently blocked as a sockpuppet. Zuck28 (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lip Service (2000 film)

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

Non-notable film. From WP:NFILM (my emphasis): Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides.... Alibris Filmaffinity and Plex sources are one paragraph synopses. Wisconsin State Journal is three sentences about making the film, not WP:SIGCOV. Fort Worth Star-Telegram is one paragraph in a newspaper listing, a capsule review at best. Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever 2006 is a comprehensive film guide. I couldn't access the BFI source via Proquest, but it is from the BFI's Film Index International, which is a comprehensive database of films. None of these constitute critical full-length reviews of the film, or go towards establishing notability through any of the other provisions of WP:NFILM, and my WP:BEFORE didn't turn up any better sources. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hard keep: This page may not seem as notable at this moment, although there many avenues through which the page could be made more notable. Deleting or erasing this article would mean a serious disaster from which my career would never really recover, not mentioning severe embarrassment and hard insults toward me which are undeserved. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 14:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with your career, we need sourcing about the film in order to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find a Variety review by one of their known staff writers, as well as an article announcing that the film was to be made. I did see this short mention in a volume of TV Guide, but it looks to be a mention of a TV interview so that would probably be seen as a primary source?

Now, as far as the nomination goes, don't take it too hard. Just about everyone on Wikipedia has had something reverted, deleted, or nominated for deletion at one point or another - sometimes even after they've been around for a while. It's not meant to be an insult or attack.

To go over the sourcing a bit more, what is needed here are sources that are reliable, independent, and in-depth. So for example, VideoHound could probably be used to back up basic details but can't be used to establish notability because they're too short and in some cases, are just plot summary with no actual commentary to justify the bones rating. Capsule reviews have much of the same issue, as they are often very short and are more summary than review.

I'll go over the sourcing in a bit more depth on the AfD talk page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Reader, thank you for understanding. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It can get overwhelming on here, I know. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gallo, Phil (2000-07-12). "Out of Sync". Variety. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
  The review provides 483 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "VH1 tackles a Wash-like saga in its first top-to-bottom fictional telepic, “Out of Sync,” a joke-free “music-filled comedy” that mindlessly romps through the cliches of soap operas, the record industry and network movies of the week. ... Wuhrer, the former MTV veejay who has become actress most likely to be nude in a straight-to-video pic, is an annoying bimbo with a constant jiggle. Camera takes careful aim to maximize body shots over any dramatic connection the character may make with the story. Rest of the acting is perfunctory. Music is catchy at times."
2. Justin, Neal (2000-07-12). "FYI - Internet moving tips". Minnesota Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
  The review provides 119 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Clothes are also not a priority for Sunni (Kari Wuhrer), the would-be rock starlet in "Out of Sync," (Two and a half out of four stars, 8 p.m. today, VH1). She'll do anything to make it big - flashing the record producer, licking peanut butter off his trophy, sucking lime juice off a male model's belly. What makes this more than a Carmen Electra impression is Wuhrer, a former MTV personality who smartly satirizes the pop bimbette. She doesn't hesitate to pretend to have a great voice, even though she's "borrowing" from a "plain" housewife (Gail O'Grady, who's too attractive to be portraying an unmarketable artist). VH1 gently skewers itself with considerable success in this female version of Milli Vanilli."
3. "Out of Sync. Alternate title: Lip Service". British Film Institute. 2002. ProQuest 1745738700.
  The source provides 300 words of coverage about the subject. The source notes: "Dissipated, down-and-out record producer Roger Deacon needs a hit, badly. A decade ago, he was a bona fide hitmaker until he imploded, publicly burning all his bridges in the music biz. To get back to the top of the charts, he'd sell his soul to the devil - or worse, to a record executive with a girlfriend who wants to be a star. Industry honcho Sidney Golden's newest 'friend,' statuesque Sunni, sure looks like a star, but as a smitten Deacon soon discovers, she sings more like Benny Hill than Faith Hill."
4. Deming, Mark. "Lip Service (2000)". Rovi. Archived from the original on 2025-05-31. Retrieved 2025-05-31 – via Alibris.
  The source provides 260 words of coverage about the subject. The source notes: "However, when Sunni discovers she's been reduced to a lip sync act for her upcoming video and concert tour, she's none too happy, and shares her displeasure with her boyfriend; Roger, meanwhile, is wrestling with the fact that he's fallen in love with Maggie, who is married and not prepared to leave her husband. Also shown under the title Out of Sync, Lip Service was produced for (and originally aired on) the VH1 cable music network."
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. Marill, Alvin H. (2005). Movies Made for Television 1964–2004. Vol. 1. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press. pp. 135–136. ISBN 0-8108-5174-1.
    The book notes: "Out of Sync (VH1, 7/12/2000, 120 mins). Gail O’Grady plays a housewife whose singing abilities catch the ear of a down-and-out record producer who desperately needs her to lip sync songs for a record executive’s musically talentless girlfriend. Take the dubious career of faux rock luminaries Milli Vanilli and the basic plot line of the memorable Gene Kelly movie “Singing in the Rain” and this is what more or less emerges. Production Companies TVA International, Hearst Entertainment. Director Graeme Campbell. Executive Producers Dan Lyon, Anne Carlucci, Marian Brayton, Rona Edwards. Producer Terry Gould. Teleplay Eric Williams. Photography Nikos Evdemon. Music Jonathan Goldsmith. Editor Ralph Brunjes. Production Designer Bob Sher."
  2. Abbott, Jim (2000-07-10). "Lineup Ranges from All-Stars to Survivors". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2025-06-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
    The article notes: "The difference between a pretty face and a pretty voice is the story line on Out of Sync (9 p.m., VH1). This original TV movie stars Gail O’Grady (NYPD Blue) as a homemaker whose powerful voice turns a record company executive’s no-talent girlfriend (Kari Wuhrer) into a star. Just think of it as a female version of the Milli Vanilli story."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Out of Sync, also known as Lip Service, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources 2, 3 and 4 (Minnesota Star Tribune, British Film Institute and Rovi via Alibris) while reliable would not count towards notability under WP:FILM: Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides, the first is a TV listing, the second a comprehensive film guide and the third seems to be advertising copy for a DVD. Orange sticker (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Plot summaries have nothing to do with significant coverage, there has to be critical commentary. Geschichte (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in Variety and Minnesota Star Tribune provide both critical commentary and significant coverage of the film. The articles in British Film Institute and Rovi provide significant coverage of the film. The sources are enough for the film to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like additional sources have been uncovered that deserve additional discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Sources 2 and 4 shown above are the best with critical review sections. We probably have just enough to meet notability. I've tried in .ca sources, there just isn't much online. Probably in newspaper archives... Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in reply to Cunard - the Variety source is great, but the Minnesota Star Tribune source is far too scanty: one paragraph of 119 words in a "variety" column that also covers Internet moving services, a TV show and an article exhibition about hair is nowhere close to the requirements of WP:NFILM full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.. It is a perfect example of a capsule review, which is not sufficient. Something else along the lines of the Variety source is needed. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toshie the Nihilist

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

Non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. Showing at festivals is not notability. No sign of any independent reviews. Sockfarm creation. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of independent articles about the film in Japanese. It also has some notability in English, having been mentioned in Variety, on smaller independent sites like Boston Hassle, and on festival websites where it received awards. Given its coverage especially in Japanese media, I believe it’s valuable to make this information available in English. Wata78 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Matthew Chozick, contingent on its AfD. ~~Delete~~ The Variety article only discusses the film for two sentences and the Boston Hassle discusses it for three, neither of which constitutes significant coverage. (The Boston Hassle is probably unreliable anyway since many of its articles are written by volunteers.) The Cinefil article is an interview with the director. I'd consider Nikkan Sports the strongest source, but that's mostly quotes from the cast and crew. I don't see enough here to meet WP:GNG. Wata78, if you're referring to coverage in Japanese media that's not already in this article (or the version on Japanese Wikipedia), it'd be helpful to have that. hinnk (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is my recommendation, @Hinnk. For Nikkan Sports, there are not one but two articles covering the film, one of which offers more information about the movie itself. The same goes for Cinefil, which has an additional piece not mentioned above: here. There’s also coverage in print in the Tokyo cultural newspaper コミュかる, issue 69, and the film was featured on Natalie (website) here.

While the Variety article may not be a full review, it contains more than two lines since the director's comments are related.

The cast also merits some attention for their own notability. Tezuka Osamu Cultural Prize winner Taro Yabe deserves a page here, as does Hideo Furukawa, recipient of the Mishima Yukio Prize. Wata78 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the other Nikkan Sports article? hinnk (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hinnk, one Nikkan Sports article is here and one is here. Same photo but different content. Wata78 (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Looking at those sources, the Cinefil article appears to be using promotional copy written by the director himself. The newspaper article is an interview with the director, plus a description of an exhibition that doesn't cover the film. To me, the three strongest sources are the Natalie article and the two Nikkan Sports articles. Of those, the Natalie article reads like a routine event announcement, and of the Nikkan Sports articles, this one is the only one that contains a little bit of analysis from the author instead of quoting the cast and crew. IMO, taken together these don't meet WP:GNG, and the fact that, a few years after release, we can't find reviews in reliable sources is a bit of a red flag to me. I've struck out my original recommendation since the title would still be a reasonable search term. hinnk (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @hinnk. Do you happen to read Japanese? Some of your interpretations seem a little off. For instance, the Cinefil article says it is written by the editorial team. And the newspaper piece doesn’t mention an exhibition.

About "reliable reviews," the reason you can't find them is because they don't exist in Japan like you're accustomed to in English. See this discussion. There is a cultural difference that prevents reviews from being much more than summary in Japan.

For establishing notoriety, the existence of international coverage, physical (not just online) media about the movie, and various awards also carries weight to me. Wata78 (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very little, I'm working with machine translation so please correct me if I'm misreading the source. The Cinefil article is labeled as being written by the editorial department, but it opens with a first-person introduction by Matthew Chozick. The newspaper isn't a translation issue though; I'm referring to the section labeled "Under24 Creator Exhibition" (in English) on page 4. hinnk (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Hinnk. Yes, it definitely looks like a machine translation issue with the Cinefil article—there’s no first-person introduction in the original. I also searched through both Nikkan Sports articles across all four pages and didn’t find any mention of the “Under24 Creator Exhibition.” Perhaps you saw that reference elsewhere? Wata78 (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to page 4 of the newspaper you mentioned (コミュかる), not Nikkan Sports. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but "Amerikahito tarento to shite Nihonte ゙ katsudō suru watashi, mashū chojikku…" reads as a first-person statement by Chozick.

Either way, we're optimistically looking at a second routine event description which like the Natalie article is based on the announcement of the domestic premiere, and still next to no WP:SIRS-type coverage discussing the film (a bit in the second Nikkan Sports article if you squint). As duffbeerforme touched on, we do need secondary sources to be able to make a proper article, and it's hard to get there using event descriptions, the award listings of some minor festivals, and statements by the cast and crew. hinnk (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unlike the second Cinefil or Natalie article, the コミュかる one includes an interview with the director, but it still is another independent source that is asking about the movie because of its notability. Again, if the concern is an absence of English-style reviews in Japanese media, they generally don’t exist for anything. That style of writing goes against Japanese cultural norms, so notability is better established through other means.

Anyway, thanks @Hinnk. Wata78 (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two additional independent English-language articles that mention the film without including interviews and offer some minor critical commentary.

One, from a Boston arts magazine, briefly notes its award win and comments on its excellence but lack of puppets: The Arts Fuse. The other, from a magazine in Tokyo, is positive about the film and its screening format: Metropolis. Wata78 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am gathering all of the sources talked about in the conversation above so that I can make a judgement.

Moritoriko (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. "“Toshie the Nihilist” made an outstanding premier at the Academy Award and BAFTA, winning the Best Comedy Award at the New York International Short Film Festival." the entirety of the commentary about the film here. Not significant.

2. "ended up winning Best Short at BUFF; well earned, but not nearly enough puppets for me (none actually)." the entirety of the commentary about the film here. Not significant.

3. Heavily interview/Chozick quote based but there are some parts that could be described as commentary it could possibly be good enough for 1 source.

4. More quote based than the above source, fewer parts that can be described as commentary.

5. "The film, which has won numerous awards since premiering at the 2021 L.A. Shorts Intl. Film Festival, was developed and produced in Japan" the entirety of the commentary about the film here. Not significant.

6. Entirely an interview, not very focused on Toshie. Doesn't do much for notability for me.

7. Standard press release material that is already found in the Nikkan sources.

8. This is a local city newsletter and a direct interview. I don't think this grants notability.

I don't think this collection of sources is enough and I don't think any of the awards that it won are prestigious enough to grant notability themselves. Moritoriko (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moritoriko thank you for listing the articles and analyzing them. You were thorough but missed at least a couple. Here's the other above linked Cinefil piece and here is English from Boston Hassle. I wonder if you read Japanese?

Regardless, that makes more than 10 pieces linked. I believe we should KEEP this since "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

The movie is mentioned on a lot of other Japanese websites and also in English in places like Letterboxd Wata78 (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hai Jawani Toh Ishq Hona Hai

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

Fails WP:NFF. Attempted redirect as an WP:ATD but that was objected to. Filming has begun but there is nothing notable about the production, sources are all promotional announcements, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. Fails WP:NFF which says " 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." Release date is a year away as well. CNMall41 (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same article Wikipedia:NFF 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."

3 schedules (Mumbai, Goa, Uttarakhand) are confirmed to be complete per reliable sources and 4th one (UK) is almost complete (started towards end of April). So majority of the film has been shot. It satisfies the principal photography condition.

"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."

This is over-ridden by the above as I mentioned. Plus its not that film has just begun shooting. Shooting is almost close to completion Computeracct (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not the proper reading of WP:NFF. Outcomes of deletion discussions have found that. 1 - If filming has not begun, it should NOT have its own page and if filming has begun then information can be put in related pages such as list, etc. as long as there are reliable sources to support. 2 - Until the film is released, it should NOT have its own page UNLESS there is something notable about the production.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read about previous deletion discussions. But I am not sure how I misread the principal photography section. I'm fine with keeping this in draft mode till it becomes notable. See below. Computeracct (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafty – The film, scheduled for release on 10 April 2026, does not currently meet WP:NFF as it has not been released and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Placing it on Wikipedia now could be considered promotional, as per WP:PROMO. The article will likely become notable after release through reviews and coverage. Therefore, it should remain in draft space, as it does not yet pass WP:NFF. Over the next 10 months, the frequency of attempts to move this page to mainspace and the number of editors involved will indicate whether the page is promotional in nature. I propose keeping it in draft until it meets notability criteria. -SachinSwami (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with keeping this in draft mode till it meets notability criteria. Computeracct (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the main space title is protected then no problem, but OP has already objected to an WP:ATD. I have seen too many times where users use this as a way to circumvent the AfD process. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirated movie release types

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST, largely original research and what sourced material does exist within the article is sourced to unreliable sources. Previous AfDs were just a WP:VOTE without actual policy debate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Crime, Technology, and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's very informative. 2804:38A:A03C:FC45:340D:BFFF:FE2C:5120 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC) — 2804:38A:A03C:FC45:340D:BFFF:FE2C:5120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: 2603:7000:8800:EE11:6D92:F6D9:CF13:FA06 (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC) — 2603:7000:8800:EE11:6D92:F6D9:CF13:FA06 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: I also agree that it is very informative. This article provides encyclopaedic value by documenting terminology and release patterns that have been widely used and referenced in digital media communities for decades. While improvements in sourcing and structure may be needed, the topic itself is verifiably notable through its sustained use in torrenting platforms, piracy-related discussions, and tech journalism. Deletion appears to be motivated, at least in part, by ideological opposition to the subject matter rather than a neutral assessment of whether this information is citable and informative. Wikipedia’s purpose is to document what exists in the world—not to legitimise or condemn it.— SBWalkerP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
I am not sure where in the nomination one would find "ideological opposition to the subject matter". If you are implying this is due to edits outside of the discussion, that is a WP:ADHOMINEM personal attack. You have also not provided sources as evidence for your claim it is notable. WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a viable argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s clearly an LLM-written vote ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: We can probably combine all of this into Online piracy. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Online piracy. May be informative but Wikipedia is not a guide. मल्ल (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd argue that this does comply with WP:NLIST. Release types are defined standards complied with by major scene groups - this topic is notable enough to have several papers written that discuss release groups and standards. I absolutely agree with you that new sources need to be found and that this article needs to be rewritten, but deletion isn't the way to go and I don't see a merge as able to do it justice. Manwithbigiron (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)— Manwithbigiron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Agreed; keep. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that all of this should be somewhere - my main concern with merging would be that this would put undue weight on film piracy. It's probably one of the most common things people think of when they think of online piracy, but it's not the only version. Plus if someone were to find sourcing for the various other versions of say, online piracy of books, music, video games, and so on, sections of this nature would quickly overwhelm the article. I agree in that it's probably better to keep this stuff on a separate page, to keep the main online piracy page a bit tighter. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This does need more policy-based input focusing on whether reliable sources exist for this content. WP:USEFUL comments are not helpful, and neither are suggestions to merge this already overlong article into another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Third party sources, article is sourced. Looks decent. as stated above the article provides encyclopaedic value by documenting terminology.BabbaQ (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blast from the past, but what are the sources which treat these as a group? Just starting with the basics, I did a search for '"cam" "telesync" "screener" "dvdrip"' and found no reliable sources. Yes, each might be verifiable on its own, but we need WP:NLIST. It's challenging in that (a) most of this relates to online piracy culture, and few reliable sources treat that with the nerdy depth this list goes for, (b) this stuff was most popular 20 years ago, so there's a lot of link rot in play. It's certainly possible sources exist, but I'm not seeing them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. My view of this debate is that a) not enough people have voiced viewpoints to give a clear overall consensus of the sources and b) those that have have not been polite about it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tagore International Film Festival

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. PR Articles congratulating a single film/actor winning are not independent coverage about the festival. "an IMDb award-qualifying film festival". Puffery that screams promotion. see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult Critic Movie Awards, noting this source from the org that runs that similar "festival". (Funny how a 2018 festival win is supposedly sourced to a 1999 book review.) duffbeerforme (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see numerous significant coverage with underlying proof of verifiability and reliability in multiple secondary sources. Meets WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SOURCESEXIST. You have not identified any actual coverage. One of multiple throw away boilerplate !votes recently from this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: discussing what sources there actually are would be very helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This film festival is backed with references which are from reliable sources and independent of the subject, Passes WP:GNG. Nopstick (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not add comments (WP:VAGUEWAVE) at afd without any analysis.. These areferences are significant and provide indepth coverage: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and [21]. CresiaBilli (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are just repeating the same crap sources that are already in the page. NEWSORGINDIA about a film not the awards, primary listing, NEWSORGINDIA pr, blog post from filmmaker, about a film not this festival, about a film not this festival, same again. Nothing useful. Your voting history is raising serious WP:COMPETENCE or Paid questions. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lots of sources attached to this article are unrelated like the LA Times. ~~This seems purposefully named to be confused with the actual TIFF. And it is monthly?~~ I've found reliable sources saying it exists but nothing that is sufficient for Nobility. Also note that Nopstick is the article creator. Moritoriko (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2025 (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

Dear Old London (via WP:PROD on 8 May 2025)

Templates