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[edit]

Kali Raat[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. search only turns up a song of the same name and the phrase "kali raat". ltb d l (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. ltb d l (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hindi films of 1977: notable cast and musicians, is verifiable (see Books) not opposed to keep if sources can be found to expand this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see it has an entry in Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema. It needs expansion, not deletion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dajjal: The Slayer and His Followers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It is clearly WP:HOAX and WP:NOTPROMO. The film never released because it never existed. The trailers were made by some 3rd-class animator(s). The film's director/writer Rana Abrar, is basically a journalist who tried to promote himself through this medium. The film only has directories and databases; there is not a single quality source to prove it. There is no crew, no cast, and not a single reliable source on the film anywhere. It has already been nominated once but the discussion was closed because of a lack of consensus. I think it should be looked at closely this time. Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Pakistan. Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable evidence that the film was released, which is impressive considering the number of sources here. I notice the previous AfD only received responses from the creator of the article and a single-purpose account. hinnk (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Disturbing if this article is a HOAX and that it managed to survive even an AfD nomination and this leads me to compare AfDs to a LOTTERY because even hoax articles can slip through, let alone topics that are particularly questionable or non-notable. Saqib (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bastard Sword[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage in independent secondary sources is limited to a single review, [1]. Listed film festivals do not appear to be notable, and tellingly overlap significantly with those listed at Ravenstein (film), another Eveshka Ghost production. The primary editors to these articles appear to have a COI. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One review ~~and an possibly significant award at the LA Film Festival.~~ (wrong LA Film festival:D) It could have been redirected to the director but....the nominator just moved their page to DRAFTspace five minutes before nominating their films....so no choice, if we don't want to editwar and make this very confusing...let's DRAFTitfy this and maybe users can make one or two or three decent pages with redirects and merge of content.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With which sources? Across the three articles we have on Eveshka Ghost and their work, the totality of independent coverage is the review identified here and a local news announcement about a screening of Ravenstein (film) ([2]). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With which sources, what? Improve the article about the director? No idea. If you don't think it's feasible, why did you Draft it? My point is: since you Draftified it, let's draftily everything connected with them. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC) (see also Draft:The Attack Of The Astroharvesters)[reply]
Comment: Yes, the LA Film Festival is notable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...which is not the same thing as Los Angeles Film Awards, the festival actually mentioned in this article. It's a cut-rate promotional event designed to trade on the similarity of its name, hoping people won't notice the difference. From their website, [3] Our mission is to promote films, and be another step up in the filmmakers' careers. Each month, our Jury will award the best films through private screenings, and make a special interview with the winner of the Best Picture award. All winners receive a free certificate (PDF/JPG file, ready for print). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I stand corrected. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. No strong objections to draftifying so relevant information can be merged into Draft:Eveshka Ghost. However, that page already has an overview of the film and all of the same award listings, so I'm not seeing anything here that would help it meet the notability standard, just a lot of primary (and promotional) sources. hinnk (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenstein (film)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Coverage is limited to promotional announcements of upcoming screenings in a local paper ([4]), awards published by non-notable film festivals and primary sources. Rotten Tomatoes lists no critics' reviews; searching online, I was able to find only this, which is an unreliable one-man blog. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: It could have been redirected to the director with the local source mentioned above but....the nominator just moved their page to DRAFTspace five minutes before nominating their films....so no choice, if we don't want to editwar and make this very confusing...let's DRAFTitfy this and maybe users can make one or two or three decent pages with redirects and merge of content. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even taken all together none of the sources really seem viable for writing either an article about the director or the films. The totality of coverage in independent sources across the articles is the local paper announcement and a review of another film in a maybe-reliable indie source ([5]). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe, I don't know. But since you draftified the article on the director, I think we should draftify this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AKA Mr. Chow[edit]

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

No clear evidence or assertion of notability. Article has previously been recreated, which I redirected to subject, and again a second time, which was disputed by creator, hence ending up at AfD.

References offered only prove show exists and that subject themselves is notable (as they have their own article), but a show about them is not in itself necessarily notable in its own right. In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Business. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the following statement is almost bizarre: In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. .....???? .... Documentary films that are not series MAY be notable, most evidently.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least one of the current refs is clearly about the movie — the Hollywood Reporter article is called "Michael Chow Shares the Pain Behind the Glamour in New Documentary ‘AKA Mr. Chow’". There's also a Wall Street Journal review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review: Portrait of the Artist as a Restaurateur", and a Beverly Hills Courier review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’—But Who is ‘M?’" Toughpigs (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on this really are that this is a documentary programme, not a film, so we aren't looking at notability in necessarily the same way. The documentary is about the subject, who is notable, whereas a film article would be expected to assert notability in its own right (like a tv episode, series etc). The question really is whether the actual documentary series is notable in its own right, irrespective that it covers (and is biographical in its nature) a subject who we know is notable.

My view on the sources largely are that they are really useful in expanding the article on the individual, but I can't be sure if they assert notability to have a standalone article for a 90min documentary programme. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a documentary programme, not a film....hmmm.....yes, this a documentary film. (it's available on HBO but that does not make it a non-film)...and yes, it's notable "in its own right" as multiple reviews and a lot of very significant coverage addressing the subject in depth and directly in extremely ~~notable~~ reliable (and independent) sources prove it. Kindly have a look at the sources that have been added and check the rest of the existing ones, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selena Gomez: My Mind & Me is also a documentary; so is Madonna: Truth or Dare. I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument, just saying that there is no precedent for judging a documentary as non-notable just because it's about a notable subject. Notability is not un-inherited. As for the sources, as I said, there is a Wall Street Journal review that begins with the phrase "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review". Why doesn't that count? Toughpigs (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the 2 reviews in WSJ and Guardian should be enough to keep ANY film, and here we have 5-10 times that. (The reviews can ALSO be used to expand the bio of Chow, but that does not diminish the notability of the film according to WP requirements). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep): ~~I didn't search and only~~ the sources that the page currently ha(d)s~~, but the~~y seem(ed) to be sufficient to show it's notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Did search 3 minutes. Added some. See for yourself. Changing to STRONG KEEP.[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Chow (restaurateur) while there is nothing at all in the article. The sources are about the individual really and only mention the documentary as part of an interview or, worse, as a fact of existence, except the Hollywood Reporter article as mentioned. No need for a separate article— Iadmc ♫^talk 12:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep. The article at least has some substance now. Will watch. — Iadmc ♫^talk 15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is now well sourced to establish notabilty and I have added quotes to it— Iadmc ♫^talk 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see the need for a standalone article at this point. Reywas92^Talk 13:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator@Bungle:: Have you really checked existing sources??? also @Iadmc and Reywas92: Reviews and significant coverage in WSJ, Decider, Guardian, NYT, etc, etc...I'm inviting you to kindly withdraw this nomination. Added some to the page. - Feel free to add more! My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd firstly note that edit summaries/comments such as No evidence a BEFORE was indeed performed and Have you really checked existing sources???, do not feel like an assumption of good faith, and is a tone to perhaps reflect upon in future. My concerns where not through a lack of media coverage, as outlined. That said, regardless of my own view, consensus seems to be towards retaining, even though I still feel there is a credible case to rd or merge into the subject's article where it's barely mentioned, given it's broadly a collection of journalists' opinions and referencing overuse. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is broadly a collection of journalists' opinions according to you? If it's the sources added to the page, it seems to be another way for acknowledging the existence of LOTS of reviews, which you may have seen or read during your BEFORE, as apparently you consider that you have done one, which I indeed seriously doubted, for which I apologise since you seem to indicate you have and honestly did everything in your power to find sources ("If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." said WP:BEFORE, and you are apparently telling me that you did. I will therefore assume that it's true.) and found "No clear evidence or assertion of notability".

I don't think my tone was nasty, and it was sincerely not meant in a nasty way, but I did seriously doubt that you made a BEFORE at all (not questioning your general good faith but the fact that you really spent time checking sources), yes, and I am still surprised that a film with so many reviews was taken to Afd, when you could have just added the reviews that apparently you had seen and read (but that you did not even mention, btw) as GNG, NFILM, etc. are obviously and more than fairly met.

I was not expecting thanks for presenting various sources that you may have seen during that BEFORE but if a film is reviewed in so many extremely reliable sources, your concern did and does not seem justified, nor does this Afd, for that matter, and calling additional sources that you are telling me you saw but failed to simply mention, even in a general statement (like "I have seen reviews in WSJ, Guardian, Decider, etc. during my BEFORE but think they're not enough for notability of a standalone page", "Despite a lot of media coverage found in my BEFORE, my concern is that it is not enough to warrant an article and etc." or smth of the kind), referencing overuse (unless you are, again, not referring to this article but to the one about Chow) is not exactly the response I was hoping, to be, again, perfectly honest with you. I take it you won't withdraw, then. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, China, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Architecture. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has plenty of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article know has referenced reviews from reliable sources such as The Guardian, Toronto Star, The Decider and therefore passes WP:NFILM in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reviews in WSJ, Beverly Hills Courier, Toronto Star and MovieWeb are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, plenty of good sources exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of feature film series with three entries[edit]

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

Listcruft - an indiscriminate collection of information with no indication of its notability as a standalone topic. A list of films with a certain number of entries in a certain series isn't encyclopedic, unless proven notable as a group.

This nomination would also apply to these articles with the same rationale:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. jellyfish ✉ 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only the first article was actually tagged for deletion; I think the others probably should be too. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. These are lists of film series, an obviously notable topic for a list (or set). The split into lists by number of films exists only for navigation reasons. "Listcruft", how? Indiscriminate, how?.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Not fancruft or indiscriminate.★Trekker (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Notable topic. That is what encyclopedias are for. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIZE since all these lists are split off from Lists of feature film series, no suggested backup plan means we lose everything. If we had all the film series in one place, the list article would simply be too big. If anything, one could argue that the series should be split up alphabetically, but that's not being done here. (Could it be done in addition or in substitute to this? This doesn't seem to be the place to discuss that.)

In addition, WP:NLIST says, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as 'Lists of X of Y') or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."

From a quick search engine test, I do see articles about "longest-running" film franchises that to me indicates an interest in how many films a series has. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, but after this Afd is closed, please discuss on the talk page of the "more than twenty entries" list whether that list can be split. Georgia guy (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAVOTE. You've offered no rationale about why this should be kept. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't see the problem. A monumental effort. Toughpigs (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EFFORT, WP:HARMLESS. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as a non-encyclopepdic cross categorization, and also as WP:OR, since this requires WP editors to decide what goes in a "film series", rather than relying on reliable sources in order to tally. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we delete all this without a substitute plan, we would have no list anywhere on Wikipedia listing film series. Is that what you want? If not, how should film series be listed (since all of them in one article makes it too big)? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: The most obvious way would be chronologically (by first entry), no? TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the overall film-series titles being split out alphabetically. Like List of feature film series: A where we see, for example, ABCs of Death (three films), Abbott and Costello Meet the Universal Monsters (four films), Antoine Doinel (five films), et cetera being listed on that page. We can do that instead of the by-numbers splitting, or in addition to it. Each film series can keep the individual films chronologically-ordered. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean like List of film series from the 1920s and so on. We have Category:Film series introduced in the 1920s, after all. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, I didn't think of (or realize you meant) that. I feel like that categorization and/or an alphabetical one are typical compared to this one up for deletion. If I had to pick, I'd prefer alphabetical more than chronological, just because a film series is more a range of years than defined by its first year. But both of these seem doable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical would make a little more sense in terms of organization, but it doesn't avoid the OR problem. Is Star Trek 1 series (all together) or 3? (TOS, TNG, and the reboot). Who decides? What about reboots in general? What about remakes? Do the MCU movies all get lumped into one series? Does AVP go in Alien or Predator? Or both? Or neither? Do the Bond movies count as a series? They're mostly just standalone films based on the same characters rather than direct sequels. Unless you count the Daniel Craig ones. Do they go in a separate series? Who decides? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think box-office websites can be used as guidance for that kind of grouping. Something like Star Trek can list all the feature films. Same with Marvel Cinematic Universe. (Judging from the number of films in some cases, we don't even have to list the films, we could just link to the film-series article.) Something like AVP is likely grouped both ways, so both works. And yeah, James Bond is a film series, as reflected here. The term "film series" isn't intended to be used strictly like in the 007 example. There could be edge cases, sure, but most instances of film series will be clearly delineated and sourced. Edge cases can be hashed out through talk-page discussions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elaboration. I'll admit that the nomination is pretty weak, but then again, so are the keep votes above. Let's not let that stop us from addressing the fundamental problems here. As I noted immediately above, the very tallying required for this list ultimately violates WP:NOR, a core content policy, as it requires WP editors to decide what constitutes a film series (is the MCU a film series? Does AVP count for both? What about unofficial sequels?), as evidenced by a lot of arguing about this on the various talk pages. This furthermore seems to fail WP:NLIST, as classifying film series (whatever that even means) by size doesn't seem to be backed up by sources. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I nominated this pretty late at night and some neurons of mine weren't firing as intended. You pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as why I nominated. I do see the point Mushy Yank made as far as organization goes, and same thing with Erik's point about more complex and cross-categorizational list. There has to be a better way to organize a list of feature films, though, that doesn't involve the same OR or subjectivity that number of entries suffers from. jellyfish ✉ 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films says The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films are a series of American superhero films. Dream Focus 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of these wouldn't fit as one list article showing which series had multiple films, so it was divided in a logical manner. List of short film series list the name of the series and how many short films it has in it, without listing all the names of everything, so it all fits in one article. Dream Focus 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film festivals in Pristina[edit]

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

Omnibus article that's merging a bunch of unrelated events into a single "topic" in an attempt to bypass around the fact that most of them likely wouldn't meet notability standards on their own. Essentially, this is a compilation of mini-articles about six different film festivals, one of which does also have its own separate article but the other five do not, and none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city -- and most of the article's content is referenced to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as tourist information guides and content self-published by the festivals themselves, rather than WP:GNG-building coverage about them in reliable sources.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation of articles about some or all of the individual film festivals in Pristina as their own standalone things if they can be properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria, but collating a bunch of unrelated film festivals together into a single omnibus article isn't a way around having to use properly reliable sources to establish each festival's own standalone notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Kosovo. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Rename List of film festivals in Kosovo and remove really non-notable events and add other festivals held in Kosovo. As for the fact that none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city...hmm....yeah, that's what the page is about. Not opposed to a plain keep (https://theculturetrip.com/europe/kosovo/articles/the-5-best-festivals-in-kosovo ; https://prishtinainsight.com/kosovo-film-festivals-to-go-ahead-despite-covid-19/ ; https://www.google.com/search?q=Film+festivals+in+Pristina+-wikipedia&sca_esv=ee8b71f1efd28755&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&ei=sRBoZt6IM-Dbi-gP5I-D-Aw&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiepfbFltOGAxXg7QIHHeTHAM8Q8tMDegQIBBAE&biw=871&bih=496&dpr=2 etc.)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prasads Multiplex[edit]

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

Borderline G11, no indication of notability or significance for this IMAX theater, Sourcing isn't of WP:ORG level depth Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, and India. Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Independent coverage in rather reliable sources, significant and in depth, about this multiplex, and backing the claim that it houses the biggest screen in India! (other sources claim it is one of the world's largest 3D IMax). So, yes, there are various indications of significance and notability and it seems to meet WP:GNG. A redirect to Culture_of_Hyderabad#Film is imv absolutely warranted anyway. Opposed to deletion. (G11? "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." So basically, borderline G11 is not G11, if it was just that the tone and content may have been partially promotional, Afds are not for cleanup and given existing coverage, this potential issue was easily fixed; added 2 refs and trimmed the page but this can evidently be improved and expanded, thank you) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters[edit]

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

There are two big issues: Firstly, there's no citations outside of the one character that already has his own page, Newt Scamander. Secondly, this is for a three-film series - so not really a huge body of work - and, outside of the main four or five characters, there's one or two sentences for each person. Worse, the articles on the films have cast lists with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters, so it's redundant as well (The main characters' longer bits just being the plot summaries of the films). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:CSC #2, no argument for deletion made that cannot be remedied by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it rises to the level of notability where it can ever be sourced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These articles a little weird if we are trying to go by consistency. List of Harry Potter characters exists, but that is for characters who appeared in any of the books, which a lot of these do not and are not mentioned in that article. There is also List of Fantastic Beasts cast members which compliments List of Harry Potter cast members (a featured list.) Maybe it might be beneficial to merge the two Fantastic Beasts articles since the cast members one is well sourced, while this one is not. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to Fantastic Beasts having multiple articles, but the number of secondary articles on it seems vastly out of line with the material. Fantastic Beasts (film series) and the three film articles are sensible enough, Newt Scamander seems to have enough independant coverage - and crossover content between various things - that it's justified, but when you get to a list of the characters, and a cast list as a table without any context, it feels both redundant and weird. It feels like the cast list should be at the end of the article on the series, and the character list... well... it's really hard to see why that exists at all if this article the most we can come up with, and I don't think anything in it isn't in the cast sections of the articles for each film; indeed, I think those may be doing a slightly better job.

Harry Potter isn't a good guide to what should exist here, as that was a much, much bigger phenomenon than its spinoff, and, as a book series, had both a lot more characters than could plausibly fit in a plot summary and a lot more development and recurrence of minor characters (and Rowling talked a lot more about the development of those characters in interviews). Films just don't have the depth of books, and, if there's material about secondary characters that got left out of the films, as far as I'm aware, it's not reported on.

And, of course, Harry Potter in particular had a lot more secondary sources that went into detail about every character; Fantastic Beasts doesn't have anything like that depth of coverage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel there has to be a merge target as an WP:ATD for this. The one suggested above seems less intuitive than if the main article had a characters section. Perhaps each individual film should have a characters section? Conyo14 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They already do, is the thing, with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters. And it covers pretty much all the information on this page except for the main cast, who are redundant to the plot summary. If I've missed that one doesn't appear, by all means copy it over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 13:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. I think there is enough to write about these characters, both as a group and individually, based on pop culture sources like [6], [7], and scholarly sources like here and many others. While it is indeed a problem that there are almost no references, this can easily be addressed through normal editing by using such secondary non-independent book-length sources like Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: Character Guide or Harry Potter: Characters of the Wizarding World. The latter also sets a precedent for a possible merge with List of Harry Potter characters, if a collective treatment is somehow seen as beneficial. (Which would pose the naming problem, where surly there can be a compromise if needed.) No strong opinion on that particular question. List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to me seems to have less content, so this could be merged here, discussion on the name notwithstanding. Or that list could be merged to Fantastic Beasts, as suggested this discussion, leaving the our list here with solvable problems to solve. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further pop culture sources, if somewhat focussed on a specific film of the series would be [8], [9], and with a fun bit of analysis, [10]. So again, that there is not enough sourcing to constitute an article does not at all seem to be the case. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it feels redundant to the film articles, and there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article, but, well, sure. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article: On the one hand I think that's a valid concern, seeing that some articles stay tagged and unimproved for long periods of time. But on the other hand I think that is the basic premise of Wikipedia, and the project is immensly successful! So I prefer to err on the side of hope in accordance with WP:There is no deadline and especially WP:Work in progress. Daranios (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, but I think when the article's a spinoff that has redundant information to other articles at present, it's perhaps more of a question. As it stands, it's just the character lists already in the three films, but as an unreferenced, alphabetised list. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not turn List of Fantastic Beasts cast members into a Redirect as that article is being discussed as a possible Merge target article which can't occur if the page is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but do note the entirety of List of Fantastic Beasts cast members is merged to Fantastic Beasts now, so unless we do combine, should redirect. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. The two subjects can be elegantly merged, and together there is less question about notability. Malinaccier (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. See no reason why not to. Only the same characters. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Malinaccier and Hyperbolick: If the result was a merge, would you prefer to merge this List of Fantastic Beasts characters to List of Fantastic Beasts cast members or the other way round? I kind of feel that we have more content here, and "characters" feels more natural to me than "cast members", also seeing that there is some spinoff into (and from) other media. So if there was to be a merge and it was up to me, I'd merge List of Fantastic Beasts cast members here. (And there is of course the other option as suggested by Adam Cuerden to merge List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to Fantastic Beasts. In case you would support that, how would that influence your merge opinion?) Daranios (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. "characters" does feel better. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the merge would result in "characters" being the final page. Malinaccier (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (film series)[edit]

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

The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and Romania. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this sorted in the Romania-related discussions? Some of the production companies involved are Spanish/German/French but I see no participation of Romanian actors or producers. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the nom's implicit question is that Wikipedia:Notability, right at the top, says that we can merge up articles into a bigger subject. See also Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, which has almost 150 comments on a closely related subject. See statements like "Where a source contains coverage of one of the books in a series of books, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the series of books, in addition to being coverage of that book" and "Articles on book series may be created in some cases where there are no series-level sources, drawing on the sourcing of the individual books." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, what outcome are you arguing for? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not wrong I'm pretty sure he's saying that keep is the answer, even though what he's talking about is the Notability for books. MK at your service. 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing indicates in her preferences that she would like to be referred to as she. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, last hope for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the series is a loose one, the miniseries that are part of the set are all RAI productions and seem to be part of the same project indeed. I favour a keep, as the page helps navigation as a disambiguation page does. I would rename it but not sure how, because most of the "films" were broadcast as miniseries... Imperium (miniseries series) would be a terrible name! Imperium (TV productions)? Sources would not hurt either. Would redirect and merge to/into Imperium (disambiguation) be a suitable WP:ATD?? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Italy, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, France, Germany, and Spain. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

Film[edit]

Kali Raat[edit]

Dajjal: The Slayer and His Followers[edit]

The Bastard Sword[edit]

Ravenstein (film)[edit]

AKA Mr. Chow[edit]

List of feature film series with three entries[edit]

Film festivals in Pristina[edit]

Prasads Multiplex[edit]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters[edit]

Imperium (film series)[edit]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Categories[edit]

Templates[edit]