Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}vte

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName)) to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|Film|~~~~)) to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
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
Related deletion sorting
Actors and filmmakers; Anime and manga; Comics and animation; Fictional elements; Television


HILLBLU lente.png
Scan for Film AfDs

Scan for Film Prods
Scan for Film template TfDs

Film

Dostana 2

AfDs for this article:
Dostana 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | ) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Film has been shelved, as reported here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn of the Beast

Dawn of the Beast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | ) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Contested prod. Fails GNG and NFILM; this video doesn't have reviews categorized by Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, and searching I only see non-notable critics/horror blogs covering this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We at the horror project discuss sources on the project talkpage before they're added to the list.★Trekker (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And can you point me to those discussions so there's actual evidence these are reliable sources that meet WP:GNG? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to look at the history of the talk page of the Horror project.★Trekker (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about this discussion, it's all of three people and frankly doesn't demonstrate a high understanding of what makes a reliable source. Just having an editorial staff is not enough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azhagu Nila

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

Cannot find any reliable sources; besides Wikipedia is not a database. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roktopolash

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

May not fulfill WP:NFILMS. Sources, when translated into English, seem to be mostly news of its release. WP:BEFORE searches (with the English title, and the native title, 'রক্তপলাশ') show that sources are mostly news about its release or interviews with the director or reactions to the cast's social media. The article has been draftified twice, and this is the third creation. – robertsky (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decadent Evil II

Decadent Evil II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | ) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

No evidence of notability, does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. No published reliable and independent sources, except IMDb which is not a reliable source. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split Decision (unreleased film)

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

Article about an apparently unreleased film, not properly referenced as notable enough to exempt it from the primary film notability criteria at WP:NFO.
As always, we do not want to indiscriminately maintain an article about every film that enters the production pipeline without regard to whether it ever comes out the other end as a finished and screened and distributed film or not -- with some exceptions for very high profile projects, our notability criteria for films generally require a film to have actually been released to the general public.
This, however, is a ten-year-old project whose article was clearly created to help promote the film's efforts to find a distributor -- it was created by a virtual WP:SPA whose edit history concentrated almost entirely on this film, the filmmaker and the subject, and it somehow manages to contain a detailed synopsis of the film's content despite the lack of verifiable evidence that anybody without a direct personal conflict of interest ever saw enough of it to write a synopsis.
For sourcing, we have one piece written by the filmmaker (thus not support for notability), one Q&A interview in which the filmmaker is discussing his interest in boxing in the first person (thus not support for notability), and one very short blurb about his efforts to complete it (thus not substantive enough to carry this film over NFO or WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source the film has.)
I'm willing to withdraw this in the unlikely event that somebody can actually find evidence that it actually has been released which Wikipedians have somehow missed for an entire decade, but neither the substance nor the depth of sourcing on offer here suggest a reason why this film should be deemed permanently notable in the absence of any evidence that it's ever been released. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul International Youth Film Festival

Seoul International Youth Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | ) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Prod declined in 2020 with "abundance of sources in Korean". Deprodded did not respond to request to elaborate (Talk:Seoul International Youth Film Festival). The article is still unreferenced and doesn't link to these sources, and WP:GNG does not appear to be met based on the text. My BEFORE reveals little (but maybe someone fluent in Korean could find more?). Korean wiki article is little better, it has two sources, one appears to be dead, the other is about a related scandal [2] "Seoul International Youth Film Festival Chairperson sentenced to 1st trial for 'embezzlement of subsidy 150 million'" so it's not WP:SIGCOV about the event. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Short Film Festival Cine a la Calle

International Short Film Festival Cine a la Calle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | ) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Dubious notability, no references (fails WP:V). PROD declined two years ago as "there are sources on es wiki". I am not sure they are reliable or in-depth, even with machine translation their coverage looks borderline. I'd redirect this if not improved but I am not sure where. Let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it need more sources, but looks okay for a short film festival. --95.117.31.251 (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Nurse

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

Per WP:NF, lacking significant coverage by independent sources BOVINEBOY2008 14:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honest Police

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

Falls short of meeting WP:GNG, coverage is limited to often un-bylined local news pieces interviewing the director. The International Media Arts Film Awards in Kampala, Uganda, where the film reportedly won awards, does not appear to be itself notable and thus doesn't do much to build the case for this film. signed, Rosguill talk 05:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gun (franchise)

Top Gun (franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | ) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Literally nothing has changed about it as a franchise that wasn’t already in the world when the Top Gun (film series) article was discussed in 2019. Like, even through the pandemic, there’s not much if any supplemental media, like video games, TV series, or even something like Battle at Big Rock or the Dominion prologue to bolster franchise status. There hasn’t been a Top Gun video game since 2012. Maverick had nothing surrounding it, it’s its own little island and while another sequel might earn the series franchise status, it would not have quick enough turnaround for this article to be sustained without at least one deletion. See also Talk:Top Gun#Requested move 28 June 2022 for aligning reasoning CreecregofLife (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could kind of see the argument, but IMO it isn't worthy of deletion. Many thanks for your reply! VickKiang (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Caradura y la millonaria

El Caradura y la millonaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | ) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Article is completely unsourced. No sources found DavidEfraim (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash K. Jha

Subhash K. Jha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | ) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Previously deleted via PROD, now recreated but same issues apply - a non-notable journalist and film critic, most sources here are links to his articles. There is one book review of a book, but WP:GNG passing significant coverage there is not and his role does not, a misunderstanding of the page's creator, automatically confer notability upon him. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh: Please link here to the two sources (and only two) which you think give the greatest in-depth coverage of Jha. Book reviews do not establish notability of the author, they establish notability of the book. Reviews written by Jha in notable journals do not establish his notability. Passing mentions, no matter how complimentary, do not establish notability. In the absence of sources that meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO, I am at delete. SpinningSpark 17:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Indian film critic. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Ben Affleck Nike film

Untitled Ben Affleck Nike film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | ) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Subject fails WP:NFF and WP:GNG. This should have been a draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask if people don't agree, don't vote for deletion but rather for dratification, so the info doesn't get needlessly rubbished. Rusted AutoParts 18:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm just trying to identify an WP:ATD or draftifying an article, and on the surface most loathe anything with 'untitled' in the article. I don't delve into WP:FILM that much but as a film consumer most gravitate to those actually starring in the film rather than directors because outside a few of them, we aren't titling things Craig Gillespie's Cruella. Also, please don't condescend folks; I know Ben's filmography, I just don't think the article should have his name in the title. Also per Bovineboy the coverage is indeed routine and we have time to develop this somewhere before it gets a title/starts production. Nate (chatter) 18:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Sonny Vaccaro, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 27. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
[reply]

The fact of the matter is unless you're a Marvel or Star Wars film, the production details will always be "routine", this makes it difficult for basically any upcoming film to be able to be in mainspace. Regardless, the film's production has constantly shown up in the media, Daily Mail even writing up multiple articles about given days on set. Rusted AutoParts 21:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And? Perhaps Wikipedia should only have articles about released movies, not the routine stuff under some stage of production per WP:CRYSTAL. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A film doesn't have to be released to be notable, so I do not agree with this assertion. Rusted AutoParts 21:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, Draftify or Merge? There is no consensus here that this page should be deleted but the desired outcome is under dispute.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthless Realtor (2020 film)

Ruthless Realtor (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | ) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Does not appear to meet WP:NF. Tow (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has multiple third-party reviews
This film has multiple cited reviews from neutral third parties with no connection to the film itself, alongside its primary IMDb page and separate from any primary sources. Moreover, it cannot rightly be merged as there is no existing place to merge it to. While not as notable as, say, The Shining (1980 film) or other big hit blockbusters, this is one example of a TV movie page that is extremely similar to numerous others (see Wikipedia's "Category:Lifetime (TV network) films", many of which could pass for deletion if Ruthless Realtor goes along the same criteria). If there were no reviews and no buzz around the movie then it would make sense to delete the page, but there are at least 3 secondary source reviews from critics with no personal connection to the film itself. PetSematary182 (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 18:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago After Dark

Chicago After Dark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | ) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails the requirements of WP:NFILM, lacks significant coverage (not a series of mentions in passing) in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I completely agree with Dr vulpes above. The page needs work, but the subject absolutely played a critical role in cinematic history. It needs love, not to be deleted and forgotten about. DeVosMax [ contribstalkcreated media ] 08:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any possibiity of locating sources to establish notability? Trying a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boarding House Blues

Boarding House Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | ) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails the requirements of WP:NFILM, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. IMDb is not an acceptable or reliable source. Dan arndt (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This film is listed in at least 16 other databases according to Wikidata here. --Bensin (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also: what part of WP:NFILM does this film meet? I have looked over the criteria there and this film doesn't look like it meets ANY of the points mentioned which would qualify it under this SSG. Can you specify which one(s) you believe it meets? A loose necktie (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lilit Martirosyan

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

Non-notable film producer. Previously deleted in 2016. – Ploni (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a note, I think the previous AfD was about a different person who just happened to have the same name, as the previous AfD is talking about a model, this article is about a producer/director with no mention of being a model. - Aoidh (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Glowing Hours

The Glowing Hours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | ) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

A WP:SPA article about a short film. IMDb indicates that the film was submitted to various film festivals in 2012; I added a press-release confirming that it was joint winner of an award at Fort Lauderdale International Film Festival. However that does not appear to be a "major award" in terms of WP:NFILM criterion 3, and my searches are not finding evidence that the film meets the other criteria - in particular, I am not seeing the review coverage needed to pass criteria 1 and 2. AllyD (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 21:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Film

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

Non-notable subsidiary of Viacom Italia, fails WP:GNG; WP:CORP tagged for notability since Feb 2022 now here we are. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the Italian article has issues and tags highlighting these. Different languages apply different standards, so this may be notable by Italian Wikipedia standards, but I believe this fails the EnWiki notability guideline. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British silent horror

AfDs for this article:
British silent horror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | ) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Not a real, recognized cinematic sub-category, just a description. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. The British Horror Film: from the Silent to the Multiplex is a history of the British horror genre, so naturally it would include the silent era. Should there be an article on Multiplex British horrors or Sound British horrors? One paper is insufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's creator stated in their first edit, "I have created this page to give a brief history of British silent horror films", so the material might be appropriate for History of horror films, but not as a standalone. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Templates