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

Dasein (film)

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

Non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any independent reviews. It did manage to get a good review from Cult Critic but that doesn't surprise since Cult Critic was founded by the director of this film. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 10 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]

The Room Returns!

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

There is no upcoming film about that because it was de facto cancelled over 2 years ago. IdanST (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @IdanST: do you have sources stating it was cancelled? The content of the article seems to indicate it is in post-production, though lengthy... -2pou (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Room#Remake. Sources in the article are announcements and interviews. No proper critical analysis of the movie or its production. --Mika1h (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diés Iraé

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

Fails WP:NFF. Not yet released and nothing notable about the production. Lots of promotional sourcing about the film which is understandable but nothing to establish WP:GNG either. Moved to draft space earlier as an WP:ATD but now back in mainspace so here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The film has completed principal photography and is in post-production stage. There appears to be sufficient independent coverage of production in this period, for example, Variety, The Hindu, The New Indian Express, and others, to meet WP:GNG. WeWake (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a common misconception that completion of principal photography is enough to meet WP:NFF. On the contrary, it says, "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." The film has not yet been released and is only tentatively scheduled to be released in five months so it would not meet notability under that guideline. As far as WP:GNG the press is all promotional churnalism that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA (check the bylines - or lack thereof). --CNMall41 (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, the point of highlighting post-production was to clarify that it exceeds the outright notability fail criteria. I also note separately that there appears to be enough reliable coverage, and I do share your concerns around WP:NEWSORGINDIA. But the examples I cited, The Hindu and Variety both are considered generally reliable. Plus both references have bylines that indicate non-promotional reporting. I grant that other sources may be context dependent and I haven't examined all, but I cannot make the determination of churnalism (which is likely to be true for any film/entertainment related article to some extent in my opinion) based on current sources to support a deletion. — WeWake (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we share the same concerns with NEWSORGINDIA unfortunately. Most NEWSORGINDA sources come from reliable publications. It's the content that needs to be looked at closely to determine if the source can be used. The Hindu is a reliable source but the specific reference is unbylined churnalism which can also be seen here, here, and here to name a few (notice the dates of publication). This is typical promotional press you see prior to a film's release. Can you show anything about the production that is noteworthy or notable under WP:NFF? For Variety, it is bylined by the same journalist who writes about all Indian film for that publication which they likely get from press releases or promotional announcements. See one of the many churnalized references with the same content. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above.★Trekker (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flower (skunk from Bambi)

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

Not notable as a standalone character - the sources are either simple routine listings or not about the character at all - the only source that appears to be is really just an interview with the voice actor. Unable to find anything significant on a BEFORE. Flower (Bambi) is already a redirect, and this article title is not viable as one. CoconutOctopus talk 12:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Disney. CoconutOctopus talk 12:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Flower (Bambi) is effectively salted. If this afd results in a keep, I suggest histmerge into the redirect and unlock the article. – robertsky (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is kept as a redirect, I suggest histmerge as well but maintain the salt. – robertsky (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beeblebrox, the admin protecting the redirect at the proper name, is still active. Since this is editing around a protected redirect, I recommend it be speedily draftified with no redirect while we decide if we want it or not. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of Bambi characters or such. Right now this is just a plot summary+list of apperances, no evidence he meets WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced the article title is a valid redirect, and the shortened form already is one CoconutOctopus talk 16:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current article is nothing but plot summaries of the films and a list of "appearances" that is little more than trivia, and searches are not turning up enough significant coverage in reliable sources for the character to pass the WP:GNG. Flower (Bambi) already redirects to the first film, and I cannot imagine this particular title being a plausible enough search term for a redirect to actually be useful in this case. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previews of the Google Scholar search look pretty promising with regard to non-trivial coverage, but I have no access to full articles. Has anyone checked them out yet when drawing their conclusions? Daranios (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through what I could access in the Wikipedia Library, most of them are brief mentions of Flower in the context of "Bambi, with his friends Flower and Thumper... etc." However, "When will my reflection show who I am inside?": Queering Disney Fantasy" has significant coverage of Flower as a queer character and "Man is in the Forest: Humans and Nature in Bambi and The Lion King" has a shorter paragraph about it as well. I only looked through the first 1.5 pages of the search results though, so someone with more free time might be able to find more. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First contributor/author of this. Looking at the history of the article... it was reviewed 25 days ago by a Wikipedian (presumably) as a part of New Pages Patrol. Shortly after said review, the article got significantly reduced down to a vignette or digest level, most likely why it got decked with the plot summary, notability, and urge to delete templates/notices. I can restore this article back to the state before review time. Give about 24 hours. Sven's carrots (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bled White (film)

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

Non-notable film, showed in non-notable festivals and did not appear to receive any professional reviews, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to fail both NFILM and GNG and there doesn't appear to be a redirect target. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above for failing WP:NFO. Plenty of time has passed for a review to pop up by now, and I was unable to find any. -2pou (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Funny

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

Non-notable comedy film whose sources are IMDb, YouTube and Amazon. CPDJay (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and United States of America. CPDJay (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's chat-gpt created if to look at the url endings of the so called sources. --Cinder painter (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kevin Hart as an WP:ATD-R. The reviews are sources to IMDb, and my search for reviews is not coming back with anything from WP:RS. -2pou (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Szwedkowicz

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

Subject does not appear to be notable enough to warrant her own article. Upon a WP:BEFORE search, no sources passing WP:GNG show up. I noticed that the article creator seems to have a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject as well, and the article seems to be written in a promotional tone. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Film, Television, and Poland. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback.

I believe that Magdalena Szwedkowicz meets the notability criteria, especially within the Polish film and television industry. She is a well-known producer with significant contributions, and the English article is a faithful translation of the existing Polish Wikipedia page, which is well-sourced and has been maintained without dispute.

I understand the concerns regarding tone and sourcing, and I am open to improving the article in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. I will work on adjusting the language to make it more neutral and will add reliable, independent sources in English or Polish that verify her notability.

Please feel free to suggest any specific changes or improvements. I’m committed to ensuring the article meets Wikipedia’s guidelines Jotdr4822 (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jotdr4822 You're new to Wikipedia, so maybe you lack experience creating articles. Please review WP:PRODUCER along with WP:GNG for guidelines. The subject of the article needs to meet some requisites, such as being part of creating or co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, which Magdalena doesn't (or doesn't yet).

In regards of the tone, it must be encyclopedic. Review WP:MOS.

Wikipedias in different languages are independent of each other, and the English Wikipedia has higher standards than most of the other ones.

If you could improve the language of the article and add multiple reliable, independent sources that would help a lot in reviewing the article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - many folks are easily impressed by the title of "producer", but it's become meaningless and run of the mill. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 7 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]

The Institute (company)

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

Non-notable company with almost literally no outside coverage. Former producers and directors section is unsourced (and the "former" status is not explained), the Films produced both point to IMDb pages, and the only other citations are:

A press release, which is a dead link with no accessible archive
A "Product Placement News" article, which is a dead link with no accessible archive
The company's LinkedIn page...twice (as sources 2 and 6)

The only other sources I could find were this Variety profile from March 2009 and this Fxguide article about Bay buying Digital Domain, both of which only briefly mentions the Institute and certainly don't qualify as significant coverage. Unless others have more luck finding sources, this is worth a single-sentence mention in Bay's article at best. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 02:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 02:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Advertising, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke (warez)

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG, appears to be largely original research and can be succinctly explained in the warez article without the extensive technical detail. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Video games, Crime, Entertainment, Computing, and Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warez scene as an WP:ATD-R - It seems like the relevant content is already there without the need to merge content. The rest of what is in this article is more of a how-to or example list (or even unrelated content relevant to releases, but not necessarily nuking, from what I gather reading this). -2pou (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warez scene, which discusses the concept already. There's some coverage in reliable sources, but possibly not enough for a standalone article. MarioGom (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afterward (film)

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

WP:NFF. The first sentence sums it up: Afterward is a repeatedly announced American thriller... (emphasis mine). There is no clear confirmation that production ever began, and going further, there is definitely not anything to say the production was notable. The first production statement reads "supposedly began"... This was sourced to a Variety Insight listing that just listed the planned dates, and it doesn't really confirm that the planned dates held true. This is exemplified by the next production statement that says it would start in October 2023. Again, this is planned production, and we have no confirmation it took place. The source is also a blog and pre-dates the planned start date, giving us no real production information. I know IMDb is not reliable, but just as a reference point, it still lists this as in "Pre-Production" status. I am not opposed to sending it back to draft. 2pou (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sounds like it's stuck in "development hell", where it could linger for quite some time... I don't see notability about this upcoming project, that's been in that status since 2020... We have sourcing, but it's all news items for a thing that never happens. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirated movie release types

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]

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

CGMagazine

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

Fails WP:NWEB. I'm not seeing other significant coverage apart from the news story about the site moving towns: [1]. Mika1h (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, Comics and animation, Games, Technology, and Websites. Mika1h (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sigcov in itself. Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom, looks like a run-of-the-mill magazine and WP is not a database. IgelRM (talk) 16:10, 8 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]

Rocking the Boat (documentary)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Also, independent, third-party reliable sources weak in nature. The creator moved from draftspace to mainspace to avoid WP:SCRUTINY per [2] Agent 007 (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sweden. Agent 007 (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Draftspace Allegations about removal from draftspace are serious. I would lean toward Keeping this page, but there seems to be no harm in making it a draft again. That will allow for better sourcing. PickleG13 (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RåFILM film collective

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

Fails WP:ORG. The article seems to be created here as only for promotion with only one self-published source being repeated after RåFILM was deleted as WP:G11. Agent 007 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Lists, and Sweden. Agent 007 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ya it looks like but it also contain some information this author might change the tone and make it informative Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manthanvashistha009 How did you know before-hand ? Agent 007 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Main subject seems to be Detained (2015) which does not have significant media coverage. Everything else seems extraneous. I fixed the structure of the page, but I don't think it has a place on Wikipedia. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	This discussion containing LLM-generated text from an AI chatbot or other tool has been collapsed. All editors are expected to express their views in their own words. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The organization creates impactful films on social, environmental, and humanitarian issues. Their documentaries are widely cited and used by NGOs and academic institutions. Focusing on marginalized communities and public awareness, these films serve as powerful educational tools and continue to inspire positive change through storytelling. Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manthanvashistha009 Why are you using ChatGPT like tools to reply. Are you being paid by RåFILM or related to Eduwriter189? Agent 007 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no i am not related to any of these Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can u guys let me know which part make it promotional and how should i maintain the neutrality Eduwriter189 (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People have already adviced you many times on your talk-page. Agent 007 (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is using only primary sourcing, not acceptable. I can only find one passing mention [3].. We has next to nothing for sources, so just nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at this time way too little mentions in media. Primary sourcing is not enough.BabbaQ (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant COI. Deb (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Stubify - I have found several sources in Swedish media that cover Råfilm and things they have done. Even excluding coverage entirely about their films (I'm not sure if they count, it is about their productions) there are two in Sydsvenskan: [4] [5] and one in Proletären: [6].
I agree that the current article needs severe cleanup, and we should start from a clean slate by stubifying it. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of their films: [7] [8] [9] AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has been proposed for deletion because it is written promotionally, not because it's not notable. Deb (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORG is a notability criteria. Stubifying solves the promotional content and I believe it is notable otherwise. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with stubification, At least with the current title and topic. I feel Detained/Forväret (2015) is the main subject but it does not meet WP:NFILM. You can find more if you search it's Swedish title (Forväret) but I couldn't find any coverage from non-promotional sources. That would be the only path to notability for Räfilm as it has received. I don't believe the limited semi- promotional swedish language sources are sufficient for stubification. I think the Swedish language sources also support that Forväret is the main notable topic , not Råfilm. This might be a good candidate to move to the Swedish language Wikipedia. If it is retained on English Wikipedia, I think reducing it to a stub about Forväret is the best move. There are plenty of indie films on Wikipedia that are notable but do not have notable studios or creators per WP:ORG InvisibleUser909 (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Edwards (Australian composer)

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

This Article relies so much on unreliable sources and no improvement have been made, I was thinking I could find a source with independent coverage but I couldn’t find, The subject has contributed in many field of entertainment yet fails to have WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:MUSICBIO, fails WP:GNG per no particularly article that speaks about him independently on multiple secondary sources, most of the citations are either usercreated space under a music website where he has listed his musical works. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Theatre, Advertising, Germany, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchana 4

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFF. Filming has begun but there is no release date (except projected sometime in 2026). Filming has begun but there is nothing notable about the production and since unreleased or upcoming films are seldom considered notable we could also move to draft as an WP:ATD until such time this one is. Originally tagged for notability but that was removed and discussion was stalled so here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It does meet WP:NFF as filming significantly progressed, and the series itself is notable, comparable to the Conjuring and Scream series. The nominator earlier made a rather poor comparision to Scary Movie 6 which is still in pre-prod. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for re-engaging, albeit at AfD. Notability is not inferred based on "filming significantly progressed" or the fact it is part of a notable series. NFF clearly states, "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." Can you point out what is notable about the production? --CNMall41 (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafty – The film's release date is not yet confirmed, and the page mentions 2026, meaning at least six months remain. It feels like promotion until then. Since it does not pass WP:NFF, the article should be moved to draft until the film is released. -SachinSwami (talk) 16:26, 5 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 06:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: To show production itself is notable per the notability guidelines, I have generally interpreted this as taking the GNG and applying it to the production phase, which would be two or more sources reporting on the production with WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage. There are several sources reporting on the filming at different locations, but I can't attest to if any of them are WP:RS. That said, I still think the significant coverage piece is failing for "trivial mentions". From the translations I can get, even stringing the sources together about the filming of this film (i.e. removing references to previous films/franchise/etc.), it doesn't look like it would even get to WP:100WORDS: Filming has started. Actress has started filming. Filming took place here. Filming paused for another film instead. -2pou (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Cooper (Model maker)

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

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage, beyond listings and credits. Declined 5 times at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace repeatedly by User:Orlando Davis who states “ I don't agree with notability tags. The subject may take it personally. Deletion makes more sense, or leave it alone.” so here we are. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Film, and Visual arts. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fine-Scale Modeler, The Evening Independent, and Bay News 9 are all highly reliable and independent. The film credits and interview articles should be noted. Significant changes have been made after each time it was turned down. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With niche sourcing like Fine-Scale Modeler, one good way to establish it as a RS is to show where the source is seen as a RS by other RS, particularly academic/scholarly sources. Offhand I see it used listed in a further reading section in this CRC Press book and a note in this Taylor & Francis. I wasn't able to find much more. The magazine was owned by Kalmbach Media but was sold to Firecrown Media last year. It looks like this is probably usable, but I'd recommend running it through WP:RS/N to be certain.

As far as interviews go, those are seen as primary sources regardless of where they're posted unless they're written in prose. The standard interview format is pretty much just question and answer, without any sort of accompanying article. As such, they almost always have little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking beyond formatting and spell-check. This is a very widely held stance on Wikipedia and is unlikely to ever change.

Now, when it comes to film credits the issue here is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the person working on a notable production or with notable people. The reason for this is that there can be hundreds to even thousands of people working on a film. According to this, over 3,000 people worked on Iron Man 3, so just working on a notable film isn't enough to establish notability - you need coverage in independent and reliable sources that specific highlight the person in question. So if there was a RS review that stated "Randy Cooper's work on IM2 was fantastic", that would count. However with his work being so specific, it's unlikely that he would be highlighted over say, the person or company who was overall in charge of VFX.

Finally, I guess I'd be remiss if I didn't say that local coverage tends to be kind of seen as routine on Wikipedia as local outlets are more likely to cover a local person. So in this case what you will need to do is help establish how this coverage should be seen as more than just local, routine coverage. Viewership/circulation numbers are a great way of doing this. So for example, a local paper with a fairly low readership would be seen as kind of routine whereas say, an article in a major, well circulated paper would be seen as a much stronger source. Now to be fair, there's nothing official saying that local coverage can't be used, but it is typically seen as a weaker source and shouldn't be doing the heavy lifting in an AfD discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.

Bay News has a very high viewership (1.76 Million), (source 11). Charter Communications

The Evening Independent was a major newspaper in the Tampa Bay area and was merged as the Tampa Bay Times in 1986, which has a circulation of over 100k not including the more widely read digital edition. 1)Times Publishing Company 2) Tampa Bay Times Orlando Davis (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fine Scale Modeler magazine is ok for sourcing, the rest either aren't online, trivial mentions or primary sources. I can't pull anything up. Just not enough sourcing for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have two solid sources so far: Fine Scale Modeler and the Evening Independent. Also, we should be able to use the five interviews due to the Ignore-all-rules rule since it is an article that is obviously notable, and the rules are getting in the way. Interviews by the hobby magazines Sci-Fi-Modeler., Psycho Moya Styrene, the YouTube channels Richard Cleveland (Amazing Plastic), Adam Savage’s Tested (A YouTube channel with almost 7 million subscribers and the public television Bay news, with a viewership of 1.76 million make Randy notable, and the Ignore All Rules rule was put in place for situations like this when the rules get in the way of an obviously notable article. He built many models that were used for major films such as Starship Troopers, Iron Man 2, Stargate, Spider-Man 2, and many others. Just looking at his older models, it's obvious that the style of spaceships he created was used for Starship Troopers, a major movie!

And what's the difference between an interview and an article in this case? For this article, the part that matters for notability is that he is significant enough to be written about and interviewed by various significant sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Orlando Davis and the extent of the sources. Meets GNG and highlights the career of one of the notable science fiction model designers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Film Carnival Singapore

(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. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage in the form of multiple reliable sources such as The Times of India, The Indian Express, Hindustan Times and many others to demonstrate notability. I think it passes WP:GNG. Sofilily (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Times of India (see below for cautionary note plus WP:NEWSORGINDIA) has two articles. Ref 1. Only has a passing mention while discussing another festival. Ref 5. Straight up press release. The New Indian Express, Ref 2. Article about a film boasting that it won some awards, not about the festival. Hindustan Times, Ref 6. Article about a filmmaker with a passing mention of this festival (and their partner festival below). Nothing remotely good for GNG. Articles that talk about a single film or filmmaker who "won" something or are screening are generally PR for that film or filmmaker. As you are the creator of this: "an IMDb monthly live screening"? WTF does that actually mean? Was including boasting of IMDb part of the job description? Like with Cult Critic Movie Awards (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult Critic Movie Awards), Tagore International Film Festival (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tagore International Film Festival), Calcutta International Cult Films Festival and Virgin Spring Cinefest. All partnered with Cult Critic. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This came up in a previous AfD about one of the films awarded by WFC, where editors (including myself) suspected it was one of many festivals that operate as a thinly veiled PR service. Most of the sources Sofilily mentions are actually articles about films that appeared in the festival, with only brief mentions of World Film Carnival Singapore. This Times of India article is the exception, but it reads as the type of potentially paid advertorial that WP:TIMESOFINDIA warns about. The ones that come closest to meeting WP:GNG are Lokmat, The Star, The Print, or Sambad, but these are all similarly promotional articles about actors/films and don't say much about WFC itself. hinnk (talk) 01:11, 2 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) 06:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reportedly the topic having significant coverage and warrant notability of the subject. Meets GNG criteria. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:10, 4 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) 10:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from duplicating your identical content beneath all my votes and comments.CresiaBilli (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needed to be said. I will add...your AfD voting and commentary is becoming disruptive. Are you able to point out the the "significant coverage" you state is avaiable? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duffbeer's analysis of sources is most convincing. Lacking reliable non PR sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Independent Film Festival

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

Primary sourced promotion for non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Per WP:COVERAGE section at WP:EVENTS, there is enough sources to satisfy the criteria "diversity of sources" but the "depth of coverage" is lacking. The best articles I found are by Exberliner: [10], Hero (British magazine): [11], and Screen Daily: [12]. The "duration of coverage" is also lacking, very difficult to find coverage of the festival in some years. You would think that winners and film line-ups would be regularly reported but seems to be not the case. --Mika1h (talk) 17:40, 23 May 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 14:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK KEEP: Some sourcing in the German-language wiki, more than a passing few mentions in Gbooks. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b. That German article is the same as what was created here at the same time by the same person with the same references (with the same goal of promoting one director). Compare this [13] old version with the German one [14]. There is nothing there that is not also here now or was removed as "No apparent independent journalistic praise". duffbeerforme (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gbooks mentions including "For example. the winners list for the 2012 Berlin Independent Film Festival and the 2011 European Independent Film Festival were identical, despite the fact that these events are supposedly completely separate of each other. In reality, they are two more scam events run by the Same people who brought you the Cannes Independent Film Festival mentioned earlier." from this book. Lacks depth of coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted, the most substantive source about this points in the direction of it being one of those fly-by-night scam film festivals that don't really screen films for the public at all, but just exist as award mills from which independent filmmakers can buy an award so that they can promote their films as "award-winning" — and even in the event that it was mischaracterized by that source and actually was a legitimate film festival, we'd need to see really solid sourcing to prove that. But that's lacking if all of the other extant sourcing is just blurbs. Bearcat (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SmartFone Flick Fest

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Ref 3 FilmInk is a press release. Ref 7 Sydney Times is a portion of same. Ref 5 Filmink is PR from MINA, a partner. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. Notability is not inherited from their ambassadors. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is indeed notable, going from strength to strength, and has some big names associated with it. Films made on mobile phones are becoming more common. It is possible and even likely that at least some of the emerging filmmakers who feature in this festival will go on to become major filmmakers in the future. As you can see, I have added more detail and many more citations since the deletion was proposed. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well... keep in mind that coverage is going to be what establishes notability here. The festival may have big names associated with it, but that notability won't be inherited. I've found what often establishes notability are things like say, Variety writing about the competition.

At first glance what stands out is that a lot of the sourcing is either a press release or heavily based on one. For example, this FilmInk source looks to be either a full reprint of a press release or so closely reworded that it might as well be one. This one by The South Sydney Herald is a local paper covering local people. The issue with local sources is that it's so routine for local papers to cover "local person does good" that it can be seen as kind of weak (at best) or even routine. Then there's this from IF Magazine, which is a routine database event listing.

Right now the page is so crammed full of press releases, routine announcements, and local coverage that it's difficult to pick out exactly what can be used to establish notability. I'm going to do a rundown of the sources on the AfD talk page, as there are so many. I'm not saying that this can't be notable, just that right now it's so stuffed full of unusable and weak sources that it comes across like it's not. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Left a very long note on the talk page. Most of the sources aren't usable and are used to back up very faint claims of notability. There are some potentially usable sources, but there are none that are really solid, slam dunk sources. My recommendation here is to reduce the page to just the basics, using the sources that seem decent, and then judge notability based on that. There's so much unintentional WP:PUFFERY in the article that it really does make this seem non-notable at first glance. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forever's End

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable ~~artist~~ film. Primary sourced promotion lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. Closest it gets is an interview with the director in a PRNEWSWIRE feed. No sign of any independent reviews, eg. Prod removed giving no helpful reason. (previous afd was for different subject) duffbeerforme (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see nothing about this film, the name hits in Gbooks [15], but nothing about a film. AFFM Magazine is the closest to a RS we have, the rest aren't helpful (primary or non-RS). We don't have enough about this film. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sourcing isn't the greatest. I found a review from Film Threat. AMFM seems like they're probably OK - they're used as a source in this Taylor & Francis book as well as books from Palgrave Macmillan UK and Bloomsbury. It's been kind of difficult searching for verification on them due to their name throwing up a bunch of false positives, though. They've interviewed some pretty major people, one of which was highlighted by Blabbermouth, which I think is a RS on here, which is a good sign. The Fancine award isn't major enough to give total notability, but I think it would likely contribute towards it. With the two reviews, Fancine award, and some light coverage, I think this squeaks by NFILM. Not the strongest keep, but an OK one. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, I think the film was submitted through FT's review program and if so, that would make that unusable. Can anyone verify that? I am still leaning towards a weak keep based on the review and award, but it's tentative. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Film Threat explicitly states "This film was submitted for review through our Submission for Review system." So, yes, unusable. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film Threat and AMFM reviews are reliable sources and that makes this pass WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 01:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at the state of the source at the time of the above article, The problem is AMFM partners with PRNewswire with no indication of how and I see no sign of their editorial staff. What's PR and what's not? And where is their staff of writers, did they have anyone other than Bears Fonte? And this individual article, whilst filed in Movie Reviews, is actually an interview with the director so largely primary. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's changed since then but it still looks like they have only one writer. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I didn't see that - I'm striking my argument. I'm going to see if there's a place to redirect this. It doesn't seem like it was classified as a horror film so List of horror films of 2013 isn't really a good fit. Dread Central is the only RS I've seen use the term horror, but I am hesitant to call this horror without the director/crew describing it as such. It looks like it was one of those films that never wanted to align itself with horror exactly and preferred to say it was more a drama or thriller. Maybe List_of_thriller_films_of_the_2010s#2013? There's the more general page of List of American films of 2013, but I've never had any sort of confirmation as to whether or not we can include non-notable films there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as article creator: This film (note: this is not an artist as per the nomination statement) is what we can consider "bubbling–under" notability. It has a singular notable cast member and has screened at the Austin Film Festival but not after five years. The director and other lead actress faded from existence, and no critical reviews at RT. I wrote the article after seeing the film, on Amazon IIRC, so considered it noteworthy enough if they streamed it.

Note to nominator: please be civil by notifying article creators when nominating anything at an XFD.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I went back the next day I saw that a bot had notified you so I left it like that, but my apologies for not notifying you earlier. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems unlikely that a consensus will develop to keep the article, but I don't see a consensus for deletion either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Donaldd23.

Edard Socceryg (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

Templates