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]

Below Zero (1930 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. I could not find any significant coverage, though coverage in databases and WP:ROTM sources exists, but this does not help in meeting WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. The article does not meet any other NFILM criteria. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in many books, including [1], [2], and [3] DonaldD23 talk to me 23:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Donald23's sources. I strongly suspect you can dig into the Internet Archive for contemporary reviews, also. Honestly, I can't imagine any Laurel and Hardy film failing inclusion standards. Lubal (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Space Marines (film)[edit]

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

The film is not notable in the sense that there are not multiple reliable sources having significant coverage about this topic. There is a review by The Washington Post here but nothing beyond that that I could find. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging already-involved editors Govvy, Atlantic306, and Mushy Yank. I had proposed deletion but Mushy Yank contested it on account of the review by The Washington Post. Started this AfD to see this through fully. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just deproDed the page. Meets requirement for notability with significant coverage in reliable sources including a full review in The Washington Post. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said you removed it because it had a review in The Washington Post? That does not equate plurality of reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A review in the WP is enough to DEPROD a page, yes. But please read the comment I left on TP in the OldProd template. And also read the sources on the page. I've added various references. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Washington Post review was syndicated nationally; here's the review in The Newport News Daily Press. There are a lot more examples on newspapers.com. Toughpigs (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thanks, that's a good source. Any others you can share? I can go ahead and update the article with them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oh, I misunderstood. Doesn't the same coverage being repeated elsewhere still count as only one source? Are there more sources that are different from the WaPo review? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, WP:N says, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So we still only have Washington Post as the only reliable source covering this film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we still only have Washington Post as the only reliable source covering this film. No. Just read the page. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you think these sources in the Wikipedia article are significant coverage. Here is a breakdown:
Regarding Off the Page, the film is only mentioned in passing, so it's not significant coverage.

For the other items, these are capsule reviews and not sufficient coverage. WP:NF says, "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides..." Such guides have many films with only one sentence about them.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added some coverage with critical commentary, then. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, borderline notable... I think it is fair to presume that if the WaPo wrote a full review of this 1996 film that additional coverage which would meet GNG exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Added some. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the sources added is for Space Cowboys and not this film, two others are what? Databases with no degree of help to the article, so that leaves one review which I couldn't read because of the paywall. And that really is only one source left in the article. It's hardly signov, my gut still tells me it's a delete unless there was something more. Govvy (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not on Space Cowboys. The Snippet is misleading. Read what I've quoted, it's about this film! (If you can't access the full page: Was Space Cowboys written by Moreland, and is it with Wirth?) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the Washington Post is all I can find for reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has a "critic" review from rec.arts.movies, which is being rather generous [4] calling that a "critical review". I don't know if this is related [5], but most things that come up are about the Warhammer series. I don't see enough for film notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that film is unrelated. Added some coverage though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Besides the Washington Post and Psychotronic Video reviews, there are also reviews in the Malay Mail, the Hawaii Tribune-Herald and the Hickory Daily Record. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Movieguide Epiphany Prize for Most Inspiring Movie[edit]

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

Weird partisan award that reviews movies "from a christian perspective" with no coverage aside from that which it generates itself. BrigadierG (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. I came up with no coverage beyond the cursory.
Weak keep per RunningTiger123 and a few column inches in the LA Times in 1996. JSFarman (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. SL93 (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the awards are covered in industry publications such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline. Based on practices for other awards, once the overall awards are established as notable and have run for a few years, individual category lists such as this are acceptable (especially since the listed films mostly have their own articles, fulfilling a navigational purpose as well). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As others have noted, there's some press coverage, if not much. But even if there weren't, notability isn't proportional to coverage. The moral implications of the culture is a huge issue, and this award is the biggest thing I know of that deals with that. It's true that it's partisan, and that's a reason to provide a counterpoint, but it isn't a reason to suppress information about it. That would be far more partisan than the award is. - Burner89751654 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDFA DocLab Competition for Digital Storytelling 2023[edit]

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

Yearly entry for a specific section of a film festival. None of the competing entries is notable. WP:NOTDATABASE. Broc (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page as its content is substantially the same, just for another year:

--Broc (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no sign of meaningful coverage; this is a relatively trivial competition in the festival, RSs only mention it in passing (example, example), and even IMDb with its broad inclusion criteria doesn't list the winner. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (film series)[edit]

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

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

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

Energising India[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not clear how WP:NFILM has been met JMWt (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Germany. JMWt (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any relevant coverage BrigadierG (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jyoti_Sarup#Director: listed there. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, I found nothing that makes this film notable. The film totally fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. There is no in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, and no critical reviews have been found. GrabUp - Talk 15:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amader Choto Russel Shona[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable Source. - AlbeitPK (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sheikh_Russel#In_Popular_Culture: as alternative to deletion if coverage seems insufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaadi Impossible[edit]

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Telefilms: (Page for director is a Redirect) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Lane (DC Extended Universe)[edit]

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

I try again. Lois Lane is indeed an encyclopedic character but its counterpart from the DC Extended Universe seems to be irrelevant in a real world perspective. First thing first, this article does not meet the requirements of WP:NFILMCHAR: the character has appeared in three films, but not in a lead or titular capacity. Also, this iteration of Lois Lane does not have an extensive coverage. Redjedi23 (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We meet again, old friend.

As discussed last time, I wouldn't do a straight up delete, but would merge to either Lois Lane in other media or Characters of the DC Extended Universe if it's decided this page isn't worth being a stand-alone article. WuTang94 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Lois Lane in film and merge in the film content from Lois Lane in other media (as we do with our separate articles for, e.g., Spider-Man in film and Spider-Man in other media). There is sufficient DCEU-specific content on casting and character development within the franchise that this content should not be erased from the encyclopedia altogether. BD2412 T 19:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a split article from the Lois Lane in other media page and is similar to other split articles like Lois Lane (Superman & Lois) and Lois Lane (Smallville). The character has notability and media coverage more than other DC Extended Universe characters. Most people already know who she is from other films and television she appeared in. Rootone (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm imo Lois Lane (Superman & Lois) is not encyclopedic too. These information could be easily merged into another page (Lois Lane in film? Lois Lane in other media? Characters of the DC Extended Universe/of Superman & Lois?). She doesn't have an extensive coverage like, I don't know, Superman. Lois Lane (Smallville) is different anyway. Redjedi23 (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Spoon of Chocolate[edit]

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

Article about a not-yet-released film, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of enough production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films.
There's a common, but erroneous, belief that the WP:NFF section of WP:NFILM grants an automatic presumption of notability to every film that enters the production pipeline the moment shooting has started on it, even if that's basically the only notability claim the article contains -- but what NFF actually says is that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."
That is, "notable once principal photography has commenced" is a special criterion that applies to very high-profile films (such as Marvel or Star Wars films) that get such a depth and range production coverage that they'd probably still remain notable even if they failed to ever see release at all, while the bar that most normal films actually have to clear is that they've actually been released and reviewed by film critics.
But what we have for referencing here is one casting announcement and one glancing mention that the idea was in the works 12 years ago in an article about the director's prior film, which isn't nearly enough coverage to get the NFF treatment.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when the film finally sees release, but simply single-sourcing that production has commenced isn't "inherently" notable in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are 2 reliable sources that are not blogs discussing the film, The New York Times a newspaper company that exists since 1851 and The Hollywood Reporter, the biggest Hollywood trade in the business. So no the sources aren't unreliable, so your argument about deleting the page are invalid.KingArti (talk) KingArti (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also I provided a 3rd source that filming is actually happening as we speak. KingArti (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, the base notability bar for films is not that production has started; the base notability bar for films is that they have been released to the public and garnered reviews from film critics. And as I noted above, one of the two footnotes that were in this article at the time of nomination was not coverage about this film, but a glancing mention that the basic idea for this film was in the germination stage 12 years ago in an article about a different film, and thus it does not support the notability of this film at all.

The potential exception to the regular notability criteria is for films that can be shown as special cases of much greater notability than the norm, and just two hits of coverage is not enough to get there. Nobody said anything about the sources being unreliable — what I said was that there isn't enough sourcing to exempt this from the normal notability criteria for films. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Existing significant coverage in reliable sources includes the articles quoted in the article + (1st page of a one-click search.....) :

etc. So this meets the general requirements for notability imv.

A redirect to RZA#Filmmaking should have obviously been considered anyway......-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable, it is stating that they do not show a notable production period, i.e. since April 2024. All sources published before that do not contribute to satisfying WP:NFF as that was development or pre-production. The question comes down to this: If the film were cancelled tomorrow and never released, what can we say about the production of the film? I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. I'm fairly inclusionist, and I consider this one pretty close, but I think we could easily wait for slightly more coverage. Draftification is a better WP:ATD option than a redirect in my opinion because I feel it's easier to add new content there than getting lost in a redirect history. KingArti is also very active in Draft space, so I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion. -2pou (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable? OK. Good, then, let's keep this. Sources published before filming started are absolutely as relevant as those published recently! I don't understand what notable production period means. A film is judged notable or not. And sources back the claim that it is notable, or not. Time has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia happens to consider films whose filming started are more likely to be notable (or simply to exist at all as films) than those whose filming hasn't started. It makes sense but that does not invalidate sources from before the moment filming started, when filming does indeed start!!! I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. Do you consider the cast, genre, premise and production history of a film non-significant? I don't. Finally, I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion, maybe not, but you feel it's a risk worth mentioning here, though. I concur it's as easy for users who know the draft exists, to edit it, as it is to edit a section dedicated to the film, in the article about the director. But not for newcomers. And if facilitating new contributions concerning the film is a concern (and a fair one, in terms of Wikipedia's raison d'être), a Keep seems the best solution (not to mention the possibility of good faith creations of articles such as OSoC (upcoming film) or OSoC (RZA), etc.). Anyway, thank you for your input, and sorry if this was too long and inappropriate. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I beg to differ, as I believe the nominator has misinterpreted WP:NFF. The nominator cited the third paragraph in NFF to argue that despite a film having begun shooting, with confirmations from reliable sources, the article should not exist. But if we review the guideline carefully, it states that a film (although it has begun filming) should generally not have an article unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. So this is where the reliable sources' confirmation mentioned in the first paragraph comes into play. If films have been confirmed by sources as having begun filming, it can be considered as fulfilling the notability guidelines (in other words, GNG), and be allowed to have its own article. The sentence the nominator cited is more likely to refer to a film that has already begun filming, but the production isn't covered by any independent, secondary, reliable sources - in such cases, the film should not have an article as it fails the notability guidelines. There could be various reasons for this, such as the film not being notable enough for secondary sources to cover, or the production companies concealing details for marketing purposes. Regardless of the reason, these films no doubt fail to meet the requirements of NFF and should not have an article, even though the commencement of filming has already begun in reality and may be supported by primary sources. As long as a film has been confirmed by multiple RS, having completed pre-production and moved on to shooting, it should be allowed to have an independent article as it has ticked the boxes. I understand the concern about Wikipedia being flooded with pre-mature film articles poorly sourced with media articles that only have passing mentions merely about a film's commencement of filming. But in this case, the film has numerous secondary sources providing SIGCOV on the production details and filming plans (as provided by Mushy Yank), as well as additional coverage about the film being conceptualized by RZA years ago. This makes it not one of the marginal cases we were concerned about, and it is safe to cite WP:NFF exactly as the reason why the film should be kept.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Ki Chandni[edit]

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this and this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Telefilms: is mentioned there. There are currently SO MANY Pakistan-related ongoing Afds including a lot concerning films or series that I would like to suggest redirects for all them, including potential future ones. I am therefore inviting future nominators of such pages to consider redirects, in the future, for the pages they find non-notable, without initiating AfDs, whenever they think redirects could be appropriate and if that seems possible. It is almost impossible for interested and willing users to verify and improve all of them at the same time, and even to take the time to check sources and content in order to !vote. This might become an issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, I don't mind redirects, but the problem is the page keeps getting recreated. I have seen that if we revert and redirect, it turns into an edit war. It's better to just delete the page. If the subject is notable, someone can always create a draft and submit it for the main namespace. I know redirects are "cheap," but they're WP:COSTLY too and lead to unwanted edit wars. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It is as easy to ask for page protection of the Redirected page through the rpp script as it is to XFd/PROD/tag a page for notability via TWINKLE, if potential (or real) edit war is really you concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Mammolotti[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE. No in-depth coverage. Can't find anything about him online except an IMDB page. Clear friend a ^💬 21:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Various awards and nominations for Best cinematographer. (https://www.inventaunfilm.it/sei-premi-in-cerca-d-autore-2021-autore-dell-anno-gianni-mammolotti/articoli16539 ; http://www.ilquotidiano.it/articoli/2005/09/25/44313/assegnati-i-4-esposimetri-doro-per-il-premio-gianni-di-venanzo ; https://www.daviddidonatello.it/motore-di-ricerca/cercavincitori2.php?idsoggetto=1679&vin= ; https://www.sherlockmagazine.it/index.php/2942/l-aquila-una-citta-in-nero) May meet WP:ANYBIO. ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times") -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) (edited as there is only 1 Donatello nomination I can verify not more, although the Italian WP mentions 2 (which is not >2) but he has received other awards)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malhun Hatun (fictional character)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Having hard time to find any valuable source per WP:BEFORE + character has no reception at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:48, 11 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!🍕 (🔔) 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the film. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I searched Malhun Hatun without "fictional character" and went to Google News and found tons of sources about her. Perhaps you should tag it for notability for a week or two weeks, then nominate it for deletion or maybe an assessment, although that's just my opinion. Kazama16 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jokaru[edit]

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

All the sources doesn't meet our requirement for WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. For good, a redirect to the "List of 2023 films in Maldives" or related can help. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Asia, and Maldives. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage seems to show it’s notable..... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV requires an article being significantly covered in reliable sources WP:RS. I still don't find that in the article as the sources aren't reliable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to consider The Press unreliable and it's a review. Muniavas has various articles about the film (https://www.muniavas.com/46563) (definitely not great journalism, but I see no reason to consider it plainly "unreliable").

The following inclusionary criteria might also be met; "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio". Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited." But if everyone thinks it does not apply and sources are insufficient, sure, redirect to List of Maldivian films of 2023#Feature film should indeed be considered. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:41, 21 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 no consensus‎. There is a fundamental disagreement about whether any of the sources contain significant coverage of the film. Assuming arguendo that there is a consensus to not keep, there is no consensus as between deleting or merging as an ATD. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:21, 25 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]

Delete: Fails GNG, NFILM, nothing in article or found in BEFORE meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, keep votes provide no sources or guidelines to eval. Ping me if sources are found. // Timothy :: talk 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added FOUR sources addressing the production and I am not sure how one could consider them unreliable nor insignificant.

Japan Today in an article titled "Atsuko Maeda's film canceled after studio goes bust due to Senkaku dispute" stated, Shooting of the film "1905," starring former AKB48 member Atsuko Maeda has been canceled after its production and distribution company filed for bankruptcy, it has been revealed.The period movie was set to star Chinese actor Tony Leung Chiu Wai, 50, Japanese actor Shota Matsuda, 27, and Maeda, 21, who was making her first movie since she "graduated" from AKB48 last summer. It was to be directed by famed horror director Kiyoshi Kurosawa.According to a Sports Nippon report, movie production and distribution house Prenom-H Co filed for bankruptcy after shooting costs rocketed. The added costs were said to be incurred as a result of the Senkaku island dispute between Japan and China. The movie was a Japan-China joint production, with 90% of the movie's dialogue spoken in Chinese dialects.Credit research company Teikoku Databank Ltd said that Prenom-H Co has received authorization to start bankruptcy proceedings from the Tokyo District Court. Prenom-H is believed to have liabilities amounting to around 643 million yen.The large-scale action production was centered around Yokohama in 1905. Filming was scheduled for both Japan and Taiwan and the movie was pencilled for release in Japan this fall.
The Hollywood Reporter in an article whose subheading is "The Japanese shingle has filed for bankruptcy amid debt related to action film "1905," which actor Tony Leung pulled out of due to the territorial spat." wrote, Distributor Prenom-H began bankruptcy proceedings in the Tokyo District Court with debts of $7 million (643 million yen) on Feb. 21, following the problems with filmmaker Kiyoshi Kurosawa‘s 1905. The project ran into trouble after Hong Kong star Tony Leungpulled out of the production last September, at the height of the China-Japan row over the Senkaku-Diayou Islands.Leung had been criticized in China for appearing in the film, which was set in Yokohama, Japan, in the year of the title, but had been scheduled to shoot in Taiwan. Financing for the Japan-China co-production was also reportedly disrupted by the political tensions between the two countries, leaving the project in limbo.
Variety in an article whose subheading is "Production delays on '1905' tips distrib over edge" wrote, Production difficulties on Japan-Hong Kong period actioner “1905,” which had been tipped for a major fest bow, has hastened the demise of its Japanese distrib Prenom H. The ongoing dispute between Japan and China over the Senkaku Islands, which touched off massive protests in China last year, has stalled the pic’s shoot, which started in November. Star Tony Leung has reportedly bailed on the project, pushing back the release and putting a crimp on financing. Starring Shota Matsuda and Atsuko Maeda, and helmed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa, the pic was set to bow in Japan in October, with Prenom H and Shochiku co-distribbing.
The Guardian in an article about the effect of the Senkaku dispute on film wrote, The big budget Sino-Japanese co-production 1905 also appears to be another victim of the ongoing dispute over the islands. Starring Hong Kong's Tony Leung, and directed by Japan's Kiyoshi Kurosawa, the period action-drama was due to start filming in Taiwan in November but has now been postponed. Leung was due to play a loan shark who ventures from Guangdong province in China to Yokohama in Japan to recover debts from a band of anti-Manchu government revolutionaries.

Feel free to also open and read the existing sources on the page, and to check the other existing sources covering the production and its notable failure.

For example, a ONE-CLICK search gives, among other things:

Plenty of other articles about 1905 exist.

Oh, and of course, the "guideline to eval" should be WP:NFF ("Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.") and/or WP:GNG ("A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), if that is really the issue in the keep vote(s) (there's only mine) mentioned in the one delete !vote above. .-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about the studio or their financial problems are not articles about the film, none of the above as SIGCOV about the film, they are passing mentions of the film while addressing other subjects. SIGCOV requires direct and indepth coverage of the subject - the film. None of the sources above meets this requirement. Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article. // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the titles of the articles or their subheadings, then read them, thank you. Stating that they are not "SIGCOV" and only contain "passing mentions" of the film is not accurate, I am sorry. The rest of your reply is contradictory, sorry again. Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article....hhm, yes, there is an indication and it's precisely the coverage addressing the failure of the production directly and in depth in numerous (again, more exist, as I am sure your BEFORE has shown you) articles in very reliable media. I have no further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I beg to differ with the merge vote from ReaderofthePack and the delete vote from Timothy.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing ReaderofthePack's comment first, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Tony Leung, and Atsuko Maeda were all leadings figures in the film, so it is unreasonable to merge the article into any one of them while neglecting the others. The examples raised, Superman Lives and Akira (planned film), are not comparable in this case. Superman Lives was only in the early stages of development, not even with a confirmed leading cast. Akira is not exactly a cancelled film, but rather stuck in development hell and production waiting to resume due to Waititi's current commitments. A recent example with a more similar context that comes to my mind is Scoob! Holiday Haunt, which also underwent pre-production but was scrapped partially due to the production company's financial issues. Scoob! Holiday Haunt still has its article retained.

Addressing Timothy's claims, I was puzzled by your statement that "articles about the studio or their financial problems are not articles about the film" and calling the above sources "passing mentions of the film". I agree with Mushy Yank's skepticism about whether you have read the sources listed above. The Indiewire and Variety sources (published in 2012) announced the film's release and provided in-depth coverage of the plot, cast, crew, and development process. Meanwhile, The Japan Times, The Guardian, and Yahoo! News (Cinema Online) sources focused on the film sparking political controversies related to the Senkaku Islands dispute and Tony Leung being labeled a traitor by the Chinese. These five sources have nothing to do with the cancellation of the film, while they are all sufficient to establish the film's notability.

In addition to the subjects discussed, I have found numerous related Chinese and Japanese sources. There are sources with in-depth coverage of Tony Leung, Atsuko Maeda, and Shota Matsuda's characters (see Elle[6]). There are also sources covering pre-production, such as reporting on Kurosawa's site visit to Taiwan for film locations (See China Times[7]), on Maeda's preparation for her character (See Wen Wei Po[8]), and on Kurosawa's plan to continue filming despite Leung's departure (See Hong Kong Economic Times[9]). Regarding the film's legacy, there are recurring mentions even though it was cancelled. When Kurosawa's cross-border project Daguerrotype entered the Golden Horse Film Festival in 2016, he was asked about 1905 in interviews and expressed the possibility of continuing the film (see Sina [10] and Liberty Times[11]). Maeda also made comments on the project in 2016 and expressed interest in reprising her role (See Natalie [12]). The language of the sources should not affect its reliability, in fact, it may even be better than English sources in this case, as the film is a Mandarin-language Japanese production.

Let's review what we have at the moment. We have in-depth coverage of the film's early development, its announcement, pre-production details such as plot, filming plans, and character descriptions, political controversies related to the Senkaku dispute, the bankruptcy of the production company, the film's cancellation, and continuous subsequent mentions about the film's potential revival. Simply put, the sources listed above amount to a dozen, and there are more available on the internet. Therefore, I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF, as the film's pre-production has demonstrated significance and clearly fulfills WP:GNG already.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I concur with @Mushy Yank and others who believe that the coverage is sufficient to pass the GNG. DCsansei (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see plenty of superficial coverage about the production difficulties, and exactly one sentence about the plot of the film. I'm not sure how that can be viewed as "significant coverage" of a movie. Owen× ☎ 22:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: What are you even talking about? The twelve sources I quoted are absolutely UNRELATED to the production difficulties. All of them are either before the production enters controversies, or after the production was scrapped. The Elle source was also entirely about the characters' biography, and multiple sources covered the proposed plot. So I also do not understand which "exactly one sentence" about the plot you saw. I am not sure how you cast the vote without even bothering to click into the sources others provided in the discussion and ignoring the argument that has long proceeded from whether there are sufficient sources, but whether it fulfills WP:FFEXCEPTIONS, which has nothing to do with the reason why the film is scrapped or how much about the film details have SIGCOV in sources, but whether the pre-production or legacy demonstrated significance and has notability. The twelve sources I provided already have SIGCOV on these two aspects, so I still don't see a reasonable basis for deletion up until this point in this discussion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take an example: the China Times source you provided is about a different film - Daguerrotype, and only mentions 1905 in a side note: In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor. That's it. Is that what you call "SIGCOV"? Owen× ☎ 09:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: What's the point of taking the one source with the least coverage to argue that all sources do not have SIGCOV? Yes, the China Times, Sina, Liberty Times, and Natalie sources are all not centered around the film. Because as I mentioned, this was to show how the film continuously demonstrated significance even after production was scrapped, and I have explicitly mentioned that some are from interviews of Kurosawa's other cross-border project Daguerrotype. It was to prove that the legacy of the film had significance, which settles WP:FFEXCEPTIONS. (I believe you are well aware that not all sources cited in an article must have significant coverage on the subject, and not all sources count toward notability. So I have zero clues why you chose the China Times source as "the one example" other than trying to pick the one with the least coverage to confuse others.) What you were claiming is that the sources only have passing mentions about "the production difficulties" and "the plot". Then you should focus on sources related to these topics. So what about the Indiewire source? The Variety source? The Chicago Tribune source? The Elle source? The Wen Wei Po source? Or the sources about other aspects of the film, like the political controversies in The Japan Times source, The Guardian source, and the Yahoo! News sources? Did none of them provide SIGCOV? And what about the ones that Mushy Yank listed out (the The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and Japan Today sources)? It's sophistry to pick the one source with the least coverage and use that to argue that none of the sources have SIGCOV, while ignoring all the other sources that do demonstrate. Makes no sense to me at all. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 09:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you claimed that all 12 sources provided significant coverage about the film. Did you not read the sources, or were you being dishonest? Owen× ☎ 09:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: You are just proving my point that your argument is sophistry. Please take a look at WP:SIGCOV. An article with SIGCOV doesn't necessarily have to focus on the main topic of the article, it only means that as long as it is not a trivial mention and addresses the topic in detail. Let's put aside whether one of the three paragraphs in the article focusing on 1905 is considered trivial or significant, even though I personally don't consider it trivial. One, it is totally fine even if the article is from an interview of the director regarding another project. Two, I was mentioning that these twelve sources were all providing significant coverage on other aspects of the film, instead of just "production difficulties" or "the plot". That's why I was telling you that all of these twelve sources provided SIGCOV regarding two specific topics - pre-production and legacy. So of course you can only find little of what you were expecting there, because you were not addressing the right topics of the sources. Besides, you were neglecting the other aspects of the film which also demonstrate its notability that the sources provided SIGCOV on. You are being even more hypocritical by explicitly naming the one source with the least coverage (length/words) about the film, and trying to attack my statement on the sources providing SIGCOV, neglecting the fact that I clearly cited this to prove FFEXCEPTIONS. At this point, I think everyone reading this discussion can tell who is being dishonest and hypocritical, and who has a valid point. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 10:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, are you claiming that In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor is more than a trivial mention of the film, or was your original claim that all 12 sources provide SIGCOV a lie? At this point, you have two options: (1) admit that your original assertion was incorrect, and amend it, at which point we can address your amended statement; or (2) dig your heels in deeper, and make it clear to anyone reading this that you are not above twisting the truth to push your agenda. Owen× ☎ 10:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: This is ridiculously hilarious. Alternatively, I think I have already proven to you that your assertions were wrong with my previous reply. One, the China Times source does not just have a passing mention of the film, but has a whole paragraph about it. You tried to conceal this fact with your wrongful translation (see below), and I do not agree that one out of three paragraphs of an interview is considered trivial. (especially the film was already scrapped years ago and the interview was basing on another project) Two, there is nothing wrong with citing an interview of the director in another project according to SIGCOV, so your attempts to refute the China Times, Sina, Liberty Times, and Natalie sources simply because they are interviews of Daguerrotype were wrong. Three, SIGCOV only requires the sources to address the subject topic in detail. It doesn't cover what you expect, simply because you have put the focus elsewhere. I don't see any of the twelve sources I cited failing to cover the pre-production and legacy aspects with SIGCOV. I really don't understand where your confidence came from to continue accusing me of lying, when you seem to be the liar in this case, especially with the misleading translation you provided with the China Times source. Also, I was wondering what is my "amended statement", as I have been holding on to the same one all the time, which is that I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF. By the way, this is not even my article. I am just a random passer-by. What's in it for me to be dishonest? Or what agenda could I possibly have? Assuming bad faith much? Or perhaps the real issue is that you were triggered when someone pointed out that your statements contained untrue and misleading elements. And now you are trying to turn the tables with your strawman arguments (still ridiculed by your "this one source with the least coverage mentions so few about the film, so the all other sources you cited, or the sources other users cited must also be the same") and accuse me of being the one who is dishonest, in an attempt to make yourself look more credible. This is my final reply and I will let the closing admin decide. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, although I can read Chinese, I used Google Translate to run the China Times source. There is a whole paragraph about 1905, which reads In addition, the movie "1905" he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai as the leading actor. He also came to Taiwan to scout the location, but was unable to start filming for some reason. He said regretfully: "I really want to come to Taiwan to film, of course. I also hope to find Tony Leung to act." Which argument is actually misleading here? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 10:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prince of Erebor you've made your case, please allow others to weigh in and be mindful of Bludgeoning the discussion. Star Mississippi 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: I was confused when you said I was bludgeoning, and I just realized there were sock puppets kept on closing the discussion. I have already stated that I will let the closing admin decide. (I was just editing some typos and bolding my arguments further, as I was dissatisfied with someone who was lying accusing me of lying instead in the discussion.) I did not bludgeon. (Not implying anything or anyone specific. But it is childish if someone is trying to accuse a veteran editor on zhwiki with ten thousand edits of sockpuppetry. A simple SPI can easily prove my innocence.) (Edit: Those sockpuppets seem to belong to User:Ivanvectra. I apologize if my previous comment offended anyone. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to be clear, I know you're not a sockpuppet. You're an established editor and there's no reason for an SPI involving you. That's a bored troll disrupting AfD over the last week. The timing of the semi to stop from playing whack a sock was coincidental. Opinions may differ on bludgeoning, but I'm glad you'll leave it to a closing admin. Star Mississippi 13:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. I will just leave the discussion here then. Thanks for clarifying, Star Mississippi! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a section to Kiyoshi Kurosawa. Although other big names were attached to the production in acting capacities, the film was Kuosawa's project, and it is not uncommon for Wikipedia to associate and list unrealized products with the director. Of course, nothing prevents it from being mentioned in other articles by reference to the section. BD2412 T 22:47, 24 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.

Proposed deletions[edit]

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

Categories[edit]

Templates[edit]