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

WP:DSFILM
WP:DSFILMS
WP:FILMDEL

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Film AfDs

Scan for Film Prods
Scan for Film template TfDs

Related deletion sorting

Film[edit]

Black Reel Award for Best Breakthrough Performance[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Film, and Awards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect (and merge, if necessary) to Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance seems quite uncontroversial (as the edit summary of the person who dpD the page stated, if I remember well). I had thought about it and deproDd it before reverting myself but on second second thoughts, redirects are cheap. I don't even think an Afd was necessary but thanks for taking the trouble.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baakghost[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knightquest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

A Buddy Story[edit]

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

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

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

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

Gransito Movie Awards 2008[edit]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Οἶδα (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Internet, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If the award itself is not notable, neither would a listing of awardees per year. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Why? I Ask it's the award which is obscure and not notable (eg. no idea if it still exists, and if not when it was cancelled). Cavarrone 06:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website was last up in 2009[2], after which it was seemingly usurped. It appears to have been the only source (as an external link)[3], likely indicating self-promotion. No reliable, independent sources can be found on the topic, and thus it should not have a separate article (which was deleted 2017). These sub-articles should have gone with it. Οἶδα (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Sphera Universe media[edit]

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

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

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

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

International Online Film Critics' Poll[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Jenma Films International[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Piotrus sorry I just did. The Entertainment Tonight article is lengthy, but I don't know if it counts towards the nationally known critics factor. The TV guide article is paywalled above but another TV guide article from the same date is here[4]. The video guides are available at archive.org. Oblivy (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Oliyum Oliyum[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would seem to be notable [5], but this area of film isn't my expertise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have added References clearly notable Tamil song program was amongst the most popular in Tamil Nadu during the Doordarshan era.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources references added to the article that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going Ape[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Merge to List of National Geographic original programming. Fails WP:GNG as a standalone article. Available independent sources are only short descriptions from TV listings, not significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kunguma Kodu[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monsters (2004 film)[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything. It's entirely possible that there are sources that aren't online, but I can't really find anything to firmly argue that either. That leaves us with the sole claim of this winning an award at BUFF. I would argue that the award would give the film some notability, just not enough to keep on that basis alone. BUFF is a notable film festival, but not notable or major enough to be on the level that is expected of the award criteria for NFILM. It's not a slam against BUFF - most film festivals aren't at that level. If someone can produce a couple of good sources (as well as one for the award) then I'm open to changing my opinion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reviews from The Guardian and Film Threat [6] [7]. Although both of the other sources are direct interviews, the Film Threat source goes into detail about the film's reception and what the director feels he should change if he had the chance to retake the film. What do you think about the new sourcing @Bearcat: @ReaderofthePack:? DareshMohan (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: Audience award at a film festival doesn't seem to meet film notability. The rest seems to be local coverage, of a hometown hero-type coverage. I don't see anything written about this short film otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Couldn't source the audience award. Sourced the other award based on [8]. @Oaktree b: @Bearcat: If two reviews (the Guardian one is a capsule review) doesn't add notability, then this article can be deleted. DareshMohan (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep: All in all, coverage and nomination seem to show it might be notable. A redirect to the director seems warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Empire: A Talk by Chalmers Johnson[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There hasn't been partcipation in the last two weeks. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 05:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Down and Love[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a presentation in Southern Living, and a review in Decider (see this).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Southern Living article is "Checking out an exclusive clip". This is about the extent of all coverage I find, where to watch the thing. The TV Guide sourcing in the article is bare, so isn't a valid source. I don't mind any reviews other than what's given already, that's not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This [9], still doesn't add enough to the discussion to !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. White, Brett (2023-09-09). "Stream It or Skip It: 'Fourth Down and Love' on Hallmark Scores a Touchdown Thanks to Pascale Hutton and Ryan Paevey". Decider. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
  The review notes: "I’m happy to report that Fourth Down and Love offers no real surprises plot-wise and pretty much adheres to every trope you expect from both a Hallmark romance and a kid-centric sports movie. You bet Mike’s brother and sister-in-law try to set him up with Erin every chance they can get. You bet there’s a sweet and sassy grandma. There’s a fundraiser, a winning touchdown, hurt feelings and boosted morale, all that good stuff. I’m happy that Fourth Down and Love has all of that, because all of those plot points are fun to see and because it means I can focus this take on what the movie really excels at: character."
2. Nowak, Laura (2023-09-09). "Fourth Down and Love Explores Second Chances at Love". TV Fanatic. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
  The review is listed on Rotten Tomatoes here.
  The review notes: "While we're unsure if this film was a one-off or part of a movie series, I'm crossing my fingers for more. I found the entire Hanson family to be charming, and I'd love to see Mike coach another season of the Whalers flag football team with assistance from Jimmy, Danielle, and Erin. Since this was the first adult male that gave Kiara any attention, I think we need more time to see how the family dynamics evolve now that Mike is her mom's boyfriend and her coach."
3. Wang, K.L. Connie (2023-09-09). "An Awkward Second Meet-Cute Reunites a Single Mom and Pro Football Player in Hallmark's 'Fourth Down and Love'". Parade. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
  The article notes: "In Hallmark Channel's latest Fall into Love movie, a single mom runs into her old college sweetheart who is now a professional football player. ... Fourth Down and Love premieres on Saturday, Sept. 9 at 8 p.m. ET on Hallmark Channel."
4. Baer, Rebecca Angel (2023-09-07). "Check Out An Exclusive Clip From Hallmark's Football-Themed 'Fourth Down And Love'". Southern Living. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
  The article notes: "Hallmark is giving all fans a big treat with their newest flick in their Fall into Love programing, Fourth Down and Love starring Pascale Hutton and Ryan Paevey. Paevey plays professional football star Mike Hansen who suffers an injury that sidelines him for a month. Mike’s brother Jimmy (Dan Payne, Outrunners) convinces Mike to come home while he’s recovering."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Fourth Down and Love to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still hoping for an assessment of newly found sources and whether or not they make a difference as the deletion rationale states the article is not properly referenced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions[edit]

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

Categories[edit]

Templates[edit]