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

Tijuana Makes Me Happy

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

Based on the following considerations:

Variety article in citation is a dead link
Link to myspace and own site not considered
Slamdance and NYT links only confirm existence and do not qualify as substantial coverage
SAFilm link only confirms that it was screened at least once
One piece of somewhat substantial coverage in Deseret News not sufficient

I find that this film does not meet WP:GNG.

I also considered whether one of the other subsidiary requirements at WP:NFOE might be met and it does not appear any are; none of the awards said to have been obtained by the film appear to be major awards. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Mexico. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dylan Verrechia: at least, seems warranted. - Eva Ux 09:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[1] here is the Variety article. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the ridiculously spammy autobio of the director unless mor coverage is found. Variety is a great start but we need more than one. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One quick note - sourcing does not have to be available on the internet to be usable - it just has to be verifiable. So in the case of the Variety review, it's usable as long as we can verify that Variety did indeed review the movie. I was also able to find the review in question by searching. I'm not saying the movie passes NFILM - I haven't searched yet - but I did want to point out that a dead link doesn't automatically mean a source is unusable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually finding some evidence to point towards more coverage being available - one of the sources mentions it receiving "Latin awards" but doesn't specify what those were. I also found a quite lengthy writeup of the film's development in a Spanish language source. I also found several major outlets reposting Slamdance results, which points towards the award being notable. Is it notable enough to keep on that basis alone? No, probably not, but it's certainly notable enough that a win would count towards notability akin to say, a review or writeup in an academic/scholarly source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a link for the Variety review above. As I said, it's a great start but given the extreme level of self promotion I'm going with my call of redirect. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This news article mentions it briefly in relation to a Spanish language scholarly/academic book. I can only really get snippets so I can't really judge the book itself. But between that article and the book's publisher page it looks like the author chose 84 films that have some sort of focus on Tijuana and analyzed them based on how the city was depicted/represented in said films. So that could absolutely be considered another potential source - I didn't have much luck in sorting through the book. I'd normally think it likely wasn't mentioned much, except that the article and publisher site implies that the author goes into the films with some depth. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was initially in a pretty terrible state, but I was able to clean it up and find some coverage of the film in RS. I have one good review, a lengthy mention in an academic/scholarly source, and the Slamdance award. The sourcing does make it seem like more is probably out there - particularly in Spanish - but it's just not easily located on the Internet. Now all of this said, I have no problem with this turning into a page for the trilogy as a whole, if anyone wants to go that route. I'll wait and see how people feel before making an official decision on my end. As far as promotional stuff goes, I do understand that but the guy and films do have some notability. I will admit that I don't really like "rewarding" COI/spammers either by continued visibility on Wikipedia, but there's just a bit too much here for me to be comfortable redirecting. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the director hasn't been back on Wikipedia since 2010, so it's not like he's actively spamming. The only other major contributor is a student from the same country, so it could just be a case of them being super eager. I'll leave a quick note on their talk page and point them towards some resources for students. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I see what you mean now. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The director is very active still [2] but is pretending to be someone else. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see where duff is coming from now. These articles have a pretty long history of single purpose accounts coming on to edit about Verrechia. An SPI was opened for the director's account, but lapsed because the accounts were inactive. The evidence points towards this being a case of undisclosed paid editing, where the director may have been trying to get around the initial SPI concerns. The editing MO is pretty dang similar, as the same account that most recently created this also added the director to the Spanish language Wikipedia (es:Dylan Riis Verrechia) - something that was done by the accounts mentioned at the SPI. It was also done by one of the other accounts that have been editing the article (but is now inactive). So if anyone is fluent enough in Spanish to alert their Wikipedia's admins, I recommend it. It looks like the director or someone related to him has made a very concentrated effort to add himself to Wikipedia by way of spammy paid editing and has been doing this since 2010. If anyone who isn't a suspected paid editor or sockpuppet wants to create the page feel free, but be aware that you will likely have to monitor it in case other paid editors try to sneak in. Duff, if you want to open a SPI for this, to see if there are any other accounts, I will voice my support.

So I'm arguing for a delete because this would need some pretty through cleanup and also in order to deny the paid editors any "reward" for their efforts. I would normally argue otherwise, but this has been going on for so long that I really think that deleting is a needed step here. Given the evidence that the director will likely hire a new person to recreate the article, I also recommend salting until an uninvolved editor comes forward. It's a shame because the guy is notable - he is just screwing himself over by attempting to self-promote. Since there's a chance that he might read this, my recommendation is that he stops and instead works with someone on the film WikiProject to add himself - there are a lot of editors who will work with you within policy, albeit without it coming across as promotional as you may desire. But spamming is just not the answer. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

● ...coverage in Documentary, Vol. 26 p. 49, International Documentary Association, 2007. 1 par. in Lieber, S., Monroy, L., Spurrier, J., Summa, A., Tavel, R. (2007). MTV Best of Mexico. Wiley. P. 68.--- Eva Ux 09:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When Brummies Met Sindhis

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing to support notability found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Pakistan, United Kingdom, and England. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1888 (film)

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

Non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No major Awards. Showing at festivals is not notability. No sign of any independent reviews. Has a little WP:NEWSORGINDIA coverage but none is any good. 1. newindianexpress. Obvious PR leading with how it nominated or the "prestigious" Dadasaheb Phalke Film Festival (no relation to the genuine Dadasaheb Phalke award). 2. deccanherald. PR about how it is winning awards at dodgy pay for play awards (eg Golden Lion International Film Festival, trying to cash in on association with another Golden Lion?). 3. Bangalore Mirror. Just an interview with the lead. 4. thenewsminute. Press release. 5. thencrtimes [3]. Obvious PR "The love and support that the movies has garnered in film festivals all across the world is mind-blowing, and it is indeed a moment of pride not just for Kannada Cinema but for Indian Cinema as well." with same festival awards bragging/listing as 2 duffbeerforme (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. – The Grid (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With this rationale every film then deserves to be deleted because they all indulge in some form of PR. Deccan Herald doesn't print such a small article that too under the section it was printed if it was PR.

I found the following review which obviously looks genuine since the publication is known for it's genuine reviews: https://www.highonfilms.com/1888-2023-movie-review/

There is also this review on Times of India: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movie-reviews/1888/movie-review/112756277.cms

Clearly the movie has certain credentials and not to forget it's one of those rare films especially in an Indian context that is shot Guerrilla style as mentioned by the team everywhere.

last but not the least Shweta Kaushal who writes for Forbes is known for her no-nonsense straightforwrad approach and she definitely is not someone who writes articles because she is paid to. This one stands out certainly: https://www.forbes.com/sites/swetakaushal/2024/09/11/indie-filmmaker-sourabh-shukla-on-the-troubles-1888-faced/ 2405:201:D034:A0C7:406D:981C:5575:5A45 (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources already on the page + articles like https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/sourabh-shuklas-kannada-film-1888-explores-demonetisations-impact/article68658741.ece, most of them in very reliable mediaoutlets and bylined, seem enough for notability. - Eva Ux 09:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the Times of India critical review here and also critical review by OTP here which is a reliable source as per WP:ICTF, passes WP:NFILM imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Distortion (film)

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

Non notable film. It was redirected, but the redirect target doesn't mention the film any longer, and at RfD it was suggested that AfD would be better than RfD. I can find no sources establishing notability[4]. Fram (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This could potentially redirect to List of Philippine films of 2023. I did find a mention of this in an academic/scholarly book, which made me optimistic that there might be more sourcing - but I couldn't find anything else. I'll hold off until I hear from others, just in case there's coverage in Filipino. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raktabeej 2

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

obvious WP:TOOSOON which automatically makes it unsuitable for WP:NFF plus a draftspace already exists by the same name (Draft:Raktabeej 2). And since I do not want to be engaged in a Move war. I decided to nominate this in the AFD instead of doing a WP:MOVE BengalMC (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. BengalMC (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Clearly WP:TOOSOON. Besides, as of now, enough reliable sources are not present to satisfy WP:NFF and hence, it appears more like WP:CRYSTAL. Just an announcement and teaser without adequate production coverage doesn't prove notability.

BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed a requested page move on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests and the Helpers insisted me to nominate it for AFD since this page has been Draftified multiple times and a draftspace by the same name exists, causing me issues to move it to draftspace. BengalMC (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since a draft by the same name already exists, what you can do is add a disambiguator to the title. For example, you can change Raktabeej 2 to Raktabeej 2 (film) or Raktabeej 2 (2025 film) and then move it to draftspace.

But of course, you can draftify it only after the consensus indicates towards WP:DRAFTIFY, when the discussion will be closed by an admin after 7 days (WP:XFDCLOSE).

BhikhariInformer (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since a draft version already exists, this should be redirected or moved accordingly to avoid duplication and potential move conflicts. Chronos.Zx (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M3GAN (film series)

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

WP:NFF: there aren't three released films to make this a series; this is WP:TOOSOON and the series itself does not have sufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG; suggest return to Draft-space until a) the third film is released and b) the series itself receives its own significant coverage Joeyconnick (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Joeyconnick (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and embargo until the January film's release. Perfect timing, since a draft can sit for six months and it's due sooner than that. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
draftify: too soon, but not much too soon - it's certainly worth holding onto. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Draftifying is a waste of time here, a third film is already produced and will come out in months, hence why itself has an article already.★Trekker (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though this article is about a film series; After conducting a thorough BEFORE search, I was able to find general notability guidelines or to demonstrate significant coverage. The series includes a commercially successful and critically acclaimed original film and also next film's release date has been already announced. Fade258 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fade258's comment doesn't make any sense - bearing in mind that we ask that editors do not use LLM generated comments in discussions - I think that !vote should be struck or at least be disregarded by the closer. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DandelionAndBurdock, Hope this message finds you well. To be honest, I want to clarify you regarding my above comments that I didn't use AI to generate comments. Since, My native language is not English. So, My English language is somehow not good and may be vague or unclear. I am happy to accept decision made by any closing administrator, If they finds me using AI in above comments. Note: I honestly disclose here that, I have used User talk:Fade258/Archive 5#AI-aided response AI once for grammer only but not for generating thoughts or comments. I don't even think to use AI to generate comments, As I am pretty confident that I have adequate grasp knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, what did you mean by I was able to find general notability guidelines or to demonstrate significant coverage? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean to say that, Since this article is about film series. I am assessing the first two films which is mentioned in this article which meets the general notability guidelines and significant coverage and also passes the WP:NFILM. Fade258 (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the individual films was never in question though. This AfD is about an article for the series. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes noted that. Notability of the individual films wasn't a question but it plays some part regarding the notability of film series because of the extensive critical reviews of the films in the series. The series fulfills both film and film series notability standards which is being supported by multiple reliable and independent references to the topic and it also serves as a useful entry for the readers. Fade258 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a question mark over notability of the films on an individual basis. The question is whether a series can be considered notable as an actual series, when at this moment it does not actually exist as a "series", until release of the third instalment. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bungle, Hope this message finds you well. Thanks for your input. Though there's no question about the notability of films but I think it is valid for standalone article because two are already notable and third one is to be released. So, moving to draft and again move back to mainspace is little bit awkward. I am not against the draft nor confident for draftify. Fade258 (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "but I think it is valid for standalone article", no, notability of this article is not dependent upon the standalone articles, as their notability isn't in question and are not up for discussion individually.

I do alude in my !vote below the "awkward-ness" as you phrase it, in sending to draft while having reasonable confidence it'll return to mainspace. Yet, that is one of the reasons we have draftspace, for a WP:TOOSOON case like this. This isn't a case of totally delete and start from scratch in a few months.

I can see both sides, but strictly per policy, this should probably wait a little while longer. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your statement above. We need to hear more from other editors on what they say about this. Fade258 (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafity until release of third film. I pondered this one compared to just accepting keeping it in mainspace, given the third film (which officially makes it a "series") has already finished filming; therefore, we can reasonably assume it will be released to make this a series. It feels a bit pedantic to temporarily send this back to draftspace, which is perhaps the point Trekker makes above, yet per policy the "series" has to be notable for an article to exist and will not exist as a series until release of the third instalment. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The films are notable and there is enough WP:SIGCOV to justify a series article as the third film (which already has an article) is scheduled for release within months. Deletion or draftifying do not seem appropriate in this case. MidnightMayhem 17:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is enough coverage in my opinion to merit an article. Putting to a draft seems like a waste of everyone's time, considering notable and film has already been produced. Blethering Scot 19:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the third film hasn't been released, principal photography has been completed. Now let's assume the worst case scenario: no more sequels are made and the spinoff never releases. In that situation a film series page could serve as a new home for any information about the third movie. There would be no reason to debate whether it goes in the article for the first or second film, or worry about having to over summarize in order to avoid putting undue weight on an unreleased film in the article for another film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that my argument goes a little outside policy, but I do think that this is one of those situations where a series article would just make sense. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is already enough GNG to justify an independent article. Draftifying it for a few months would just create more work and issues. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments are evenly divided between Keep and Draftify. Ultimately, it doesn't matter for the future of this article just where it is located for the near future. But we still need to come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Domm (Bangladeshi film)

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

Filming has not yet begun, per WP:NFF, draftify until main production has been confirmed BOVINEBOY2008 20:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. As above _{so below} 22:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But of course I already draftified it. The original author fixed the references and recreated it directly in mainspace again. He wasn't the only author... so there's a copy/paste move in the article's editing history and a full on history merge is needed. A sysop will have to sort that out.

Looking at the history and the talk pages, I just wonder whether maybe WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. They certainly don't talk to us.

I'm going to go with draftify and salt.—S Marshall T/C 09:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not THEYCANTHEARYOU because the editor has started a deletion review in the meantime. They know about Wikipedia's discussion space but choose not to use it.

This does need a sysop's attention. WP:HISTMERGE, delete the draft space version, draftify the mainspace version, salt the mainspace redlink, and educate them about how to work in a collaborative environment and on how much work copy/paste moves cause for others.

Or block til they start talking. One of the two.—S Marshall T/C 07:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: because there are many reliable sources here! – Aqsis Bey (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The cited sources are a few promotional press releases/conferences in the many outlets that reprinted them. But 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 = zero independent secondary sources. Based on the sources so far, it's unlikely to become notable until after it is released (assuming that ever happens). --Worldbruce (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. As it is toosoon and wait until film got released. Fade258 (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King of the South (film)

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

No evidence filming actually took place, sources are all indicating filming will happen, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 09:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://urbanbridgez.com/2019/01/14/master-ps-king-of-the-south-to-be-released-via-lionsgate/ Filming took placec in 2019 KingArti (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Master P#Film and television career. As an apparenly unreleased film, per WP:NFF it should not have an article of its own. If the film does get released in the future, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Polainas

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

I see no indication that this film was notable. It appears to be very little mentioned anywhere. BD2412 T 03:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Mexico. BD2412 T 03:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a few sources; the film is very much mentioned in various books about Mexican film, and Mexican film and Revolution, at least. Entry in Wilt. It has a number of interesting features. The plot can be developed but only if it is kept. Very notable cast and director. The page could be redirected to the director, but that would be detrimental to the reader. - Eva Ux 09:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The key word here, though, is "mentioned"; aside from the David Wilt source (which provides a reasonable paragraph of coverage, not by itself enough), everything that has been added appears to be, as far as I am able to see from the Google snippets, passing mentions of the film. I could be persuaded that this was a notable film, but this amount of coverage does not persuade me. BD2412 T 19:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The entry in Historia documental del cine mexicano: 1959-1960 seems more or less of the same size as the one in Wilt and can hardly be called a "passing mention". - Eva Ux 21:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to René Cardona in the absence of better sources. The Wilt source is not much more than what I would call a capsule review and I can't see if the Historia documental del cine mexicano: 1959-1960 is any better. Redirect allows for recreation from the history if some more substantial sources can be located. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point-of-view pornography

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

This article consists completely of unverified original research, with the exception of one section that has one citation and seems to be written in a somewhat unencyclopedic manner. Cyrobyte (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though X-Rated Critics Organization and AVN Awards have categories like “Best POV Release” and “Best POV Series,” this recognition comes from adult-industry trade groups. These sources are generally not sufficient by themselves to establish independent notability under WP:GNG. It duplicates coverage that would fit under more general articles on pornography, filming techniques, or production styles, rather than warranting a standalone article.--Policking (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the significant coverage in reliable sources including Mikkola, M. (2019), Pornography: A Philosophical Introduction Oxford University Press, p. 182; Bown, A. (2022). Dream Lovers: The Gamification of Relationships, Pluto Press, p. 91, Bernadette Barton, The Pornification of America: How Raunch Culture Is Ruining Our Society, NYU Press. p. 60-61, etc. Could also be merged into Gonzo pornography but they're slightly different. Anyway, deletion does not seem necessary. - Eva Ux 15:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though it is acknowledged that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, that rationale is not invoked for deletion, what is relevant here is notability. In that regard, the subject is still notable, per Eva UX's mention of said sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge Per Eva UX's sources, the notability of the subject has been established. However, on further thought, the subject considerably overlaps with Gonzo pornography, to the point of being somewhat of a more specialized form of it. Therefore, I have changed my recommendation to merge. LightlySeared (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC) 10:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:SIGCOV and the article seems to rely almost exclusively on original research. If more sources are integrated into the article, please ping me. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gonzo pornography which is the same thing as far as I can tell from the articles and certainly has some overlap. The sources in the article aren't great but those listed above by Eva Ux look to be plenty. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Majhi Prarthana

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

Already in draft space, circumventing article submission process BOVINEBOY2008 03:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - it's actually sourced now, as I tagged, but the format needs some work. Bearian (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Since Draft:Majhi Prarthana exists, do you all want that draft deleted and this article moved to Draft space? Or just delete this article and let the Draft space article be worked on?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still need an answer to the question in the last relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I am aware that my comments below is out of Wikipedia policies but at this situation, I am with my personal opinion. As Liz asked above, It will be better to delete existing draft and move this article to draftspace for improvement. Fade258 (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Liz. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of adult animated feature films nominated for Academy Awards

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

This seems to be an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. None of the cited sources, nor any others I could find after a quick search, discuss "adult animated feature films nominated for Academy Awards" as a group. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, and Lists. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. From my cursory look, it also seems like the entries on the list were added purely based on what their MPA rating is without any actual sources to support, which would be WP:OR. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll go ahead and ask the question: is there any merit in having an article that lists out the films that are rated PG-13 and above? They're not exactly uncommon, but it is a bit unusual for them to get nominations since the vast, vast majority are G or PG rated. Offhand there seems to be some mild coverage towards the topic. I haven't super dug in, but there does seem to be at least some mild hubbub over the award leaning towards family friendly fare. I just don't know if it's necessarily enough to justify a spinoff article. I'm not exactly arguing for a keep here, just asking if there is any merit in somewhat changing the focus away from the name "adult animated film" and maybe to something rating specific. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think something of this sort could be mentioned at List of animated feature films nominated for Academy Awards, but I don't see justification for a separate page for those rated PG-13 and above. Or Academy Award for Best Animated Feature has some good prose sections and could include some discussion including any sources covering the topic. But the fact that some song, score, or international film nominations were adult animation isn't as relevant. Reywas92^Talk 14:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could be good - I know that the list article already has a section on R rated films. The article specifies that it excludes ones nominated for BAF, but I can see why it's added since there have only been two R-rated films that have been nominated. Since the page specifically excludes BAF nominations other than those two, I don't know if we could really include any PG-13 films unless they were nominated for other awards. The main article does have some mention about the award perpetuating the idea that animation is for kids, but doesn't mention ratings - maybe there could be a brief mention there about film ratings and/or count of how many films have been nominated in each rating? I know that WP:ITSINTERESTING isn't a rationale to include something on Wikipedia, but it does kind of feel like something that could merit some light mention somewhere. This also made me question something else, but it's not really related to this so I'll bring that up at WP:FILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually never mind on that last part - got my answer. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss potential merge targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The very definition of "adult animated featured films" that forms the basis of this list appears to be novel to Wikipedia, or in other words WP:Original research. Since when is the United States Motion Picture Association rating the deciding factor? That's both arbitrary and WP:AMERICENTRIC. With that in mind, I don't see a merge as being appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Auton (film series)

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

A film series for the Doctor Who franchise. I recently did research for the Autons, and while digging, I did a little bit of research on these films, but could find absolutely nothing on them. The only mentions were brief, and mentioned the films existed, but said nothing more. I can't find any dev info, let alone SIGCOV that would provide reception for the films. The only source from the article providing any commentary is a single book, with any other source being fanzines or Doctor Who Magazine, which is a PRIMARY source officially published for the Doctor Who franchise, and with BBV being tied to the BBC in production of these films, I doubt it passes a threshold of separation from the Magazine's usual advertisement. This article also suffers from WP:COATRACK, courtesy of all three being separate, non-notable subjects covered together to cobble together an article. I'd suggest a redirect to either BBV Productions where these films are listed, or Nestene Consciousness and Autons, where these films are also listed, as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Television. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I assume the nominator's intended alternative to deletion redirect suggestions are actually BBV Productions (not the BBV disambiguation page) or Nestene Consciousness and Autons (Nestene Consciousness and Auton does not exist, but is probably little more than a typo). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcquidditch oop, thank you for the catch. I've amended my nom statement's links for clarity. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think coatrack applies as the films are obviously connected on the same subject by the same producers and the same distributors. Regarding the book source for critical analysis "Downtime - The Lost Years of Doctor Who" by Dylan Rees it would be considered more reliable if it has been used in scholarly sources ? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306 I don't deny the Downtime source, but the fact it's quite literally the only reliable piece of SIGCOV is the biggest problem. An article relying basically exclusively on one source is a huge issue; I've found substantially more content comparatively on other BBV films, these ones definitely seem to be the outlier in terms of actual SIGCOV that exists. If there's any more out there I missed I'd be happy to see it though. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; specific opinions on outcomes for this article would be very helpful, since I see very little of that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

Templates