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.

Points of interest related to Film on Wikipedia Portal – Category – WikiProject – Stubs – Deletions – Cleanup

Shortcut: WP:FILMDEL

Deletion Sorting Project
Project page (talk) Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday edit · changes

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:

• To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

• Look through the list of current discussions to find items related to this subject area.
• 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. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
• You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Film}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users 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.

• Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
• You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Film.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or 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.

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.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

Related deletion sorting

Actors and filmmakers; Anime and manga; Comics and animation; Fictional characters; Television

Scan for Film AfDs Scan for Film Prods Scan for Film template TfDs

Contents 1 Film 1.1 Townie techno 1.2 Barbie in A Mermaid Tale 1.3 Genovia 1.4 Disney Race to Witch Mountain 1.5 Fred the movie 1.6 The Devil's Child 1.7 List of films about the RMS Titanic 1.8 Jackass Number 3 1.9 Characters and wildlife in Avatar 1.10 The 614 volume 1 1.11 One shot (music video) 1.12 No Ten Dollars Ride 1.13 Denizen (2010 film) 1.14 Cold Heart Canyon 1.15 Bad Reputation (film) 1.16 Natasha (film) 1.17 Living Water 1.18 Cain and Abel (film) 1.19 3-Play 1.20 A Shepard of Pure Heart 1.21 Death Knows Your Name (2007 Movie) 1.22 Champion Road 1.23 Book of Songs (film) 1.24 Below The Earth's Surface 1.25 Border Town 1.26 Fast Track: No Limits 1.27 Anna's Eve 1.28 Prisoners of Society 1.29 Magma: Volcanic Disaster 1.30 Divorced Guys 1.31 Haunting Sarah 2 Categories 3 Templates 4 Proposed deletions

[edit] Film

[edit] Townie techno

Townie techno (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Townie techno" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable student film uploaded on YouTube. No indication of meeting WP:NF nor WP:N, unable to locate any independent third party reliable sources about this film; Google only turns up Wikipedia mirror sites and uploads of video on free hosting services other than YouTube. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Barbie in A Mermaid Tale

Barbie in A Mermaid Tale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Barbie in A Mermaid Tale" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Unsourced article for film that either will be or was released, depending on how you read it. Sources show a book by that name for January 2010, but nothing else. Article created by editor|Special:Contributions/Chistopher_John_P.K._Sacedor who has since disappeared. Article now defended by editor Special:Contributions/Bianca_Anne_Martins with curious relationship to creator and history of creating similar articles. SummerPhD (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. A weak keep. The whole article needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view and the speculation need to be cut out. But as the film apparently exists, we shouldn't delete the whole article. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I see nothing to indicate this movie does exist. The author who created it has done nothing else. Several minutes after it was created, another editor (in theory...) came along and created the image for the article and started defending the article on all fronts. The second editor's edits include adding media reception info for a completely different movie, copied from that article, with only the release date changed. I've been unable to find anything showing this as a released or planned film. I submit that the creator is a sock of the second editor and the article is a fiction. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No sources. If they show them, it's a keep. Otherwise delete. NativeForeigner (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 05:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I found and added a ref to a cached page that shows the project is by Universal Home Videos, and several online fansites showing trailers. So okay... I can believe it's not a hoax. But how notable is Barbie stuff? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment You had to add the cached page for a reason. The page you were citing is user generated and the specific page is now gone from their site. Released Barbie movies seem to be notable enough. This one, though, is either entirely illusory, canceled or forthcoming but non-notable. There are no reliable sources, so Wikipedia should not have an article on it. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. First, this film hasn't even been released yet according to the article. So we're probably in WP:NFF territory. I'm not seeing significant coverage by reliable, third party sources. Merely existing doesn't make it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Genovia

Genovia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Genovia" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Article is entirely in-universe and poorly written. While that is not, in itself, a reason to delete, it is completely unsourced, a mess of OR, and I can't find out-of-universe sources that give it more than a passing mention. Its been tagged with Uncited and Notability since July. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete unnotable fictional location, with no real-world notability and little real impact on the stories themselves as it is simply a made up place to set the story, and not of significant difference to anything in the real world that requires such significant explanation nor OR (as a side note, it seems the same OR regarding the "differences") is repeated throughout the various film/book articles) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and set Redirect to The Princess Diaries where this location would have its notability and souring within the notable works themselves. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• merge as this is the location for the books, material about it is important, but the information here is both excessively detailed, and could be presented better with less duplication in the main article. But I note this is really a discussion about how to arrange the material, not about deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fred the movie

Fred the movie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Fred the movie" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Endorsed PROD that has been contested. Non-notable future film per WP:NFF. Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Just saw this piece in the New York Times. I'm curious if this is enough to satisfy WP:NFF, which requires the production of the film (and not the film itself) to be notable. As it stands, this article is not about the production of the film. Not sure about this one. Maybe a merger to Fred Figglehorn? Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I agree with User:Steamroller Assault. This article is essentially a pre-release announcement of a movie based on a You-Tube series. The article makes no effort to document the notability of the pre-released movie, and therefor, by Wikipedia policy, ought to be merged into the article about the You-Tube series. Scott P. (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. There was already a discussion about this. The result was redirect to Fred Figglehorn. The discussion can be found there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred: The Movie. Armbrust (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as there is already a redirect about this. Armbrust (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fred Figglehorn per the earlier discussion. EALacey (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete this recent version without prejudice. As User:Spartaz noted in closing the last AFD just 2 weeks ago, "The sourcing isn't quite there yet but its close. the NYT is one but we need more then one really decent source and arguably this belongs with the main article until the coverage is more substantial, So I'm closing this as a redirect with a specific caveat that this can be undone as and when the sourcing improves without need to refer to me or have any further discussion." The way I see it, the film has been completed, is getting more coverage, and will quite soon merit an independent article. So being a bit proactively BOLD, I went ahead and just spent a few minutes creating a better-sourced article about the Fred movie and just moved the improved version to WP:INCUBATE at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Fred: The Movie. With respects to the authors of earlier versions, the Incubator is the better place to expand and improve the article as more becomes available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as per the extremely recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred: The Movie discussion. Do not merge as there is nothing here worth merging. JBsupreme (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• CSD as recreation of already deleted/redirected article per a ridiculously recent AfD already linked by others. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  With respects, the newer version included additional information, so it was not "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy", though the subject matter was the same. I will be happy to WP:AGF that the author of the second article was unaware of the first AFD discussion... one where the article was noted by the closer as almost-but-not-quit-ready for mainpages, and I make pparticular note of the closer writing "closing this as a redirect with a specific caveat that this can be undone as and when the sourcing improves without need to refer to me or have any further discussion". So I am sure the authors of both might be happy to work with WP:Incubation in adding additional sources and content in preparation for its return-without-prejudice as the release date for this completed film approaches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of films about the RMS Titanic

List of films about the RMS Titanic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "List of films about the RMS Titanic" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Meager, incomplete, too-short list. These individual films are covered more completely in other articles and templates. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. If it's incomplete or too short, this can be fixed by editing. Unless a more complete list exists, I don't see a good case for deletion. If such a list does exist it would be helpful to identify it here.--Michig (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with RMS Titanic in popular culture; both articles are incomplete, it would be WP:BETTER to moosh them together than to delete either one. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Such a Merge looks like a sensible approach.--Michig (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with RMS Titanic in popular culture per Michig. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and no merge to a pop culture article. I can't say that I understand the nomination. The events of April 15, 1912, have been the subject of many movies, even more so than December 7, 1941 (Pearl Harbor) or November 22, 1963 (JFK assassination). The nominator suggests that there are more films than the fifteen that are referred to here, hence the trinity of meager, incomplete, too short), which is a reason to add. Still, fifteen films out of the last 97 years is a lot. Under no circumstances should this be merged into the mostly stupid "in popular culture" article. Instead, the serious film section of that article can be merged into this one, rather than sharing a stall with the list of hilarious references to the disaster in SpongeBob and The Simpsons and Zack and Cody, etc. Mandsford (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support this approach as well, if the commentary from the "in pop culture" article was merged in with this one; better to give some context for those films that simply a list of names. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Merge as suggested above. There is already a list of films in that article. That seems like a better place for this list. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested above. Titanic as a cultural touchstone is notable, but it's hard to see how twisting the untimely deaths of over 1,500 people into a Nazi propaganda piece or a trite, hackneyed melodrama (IMHO) is really any less "stupid" than a mention in Spongebob Square Pants. All are parts of pop culture; there's no need to have separate lists. --NellieBly (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to RMS Titanic in popular culture per suggestions above. Oh how I despise X in Popular Culture articles.  :( JBsupreme (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to RMS Titanic in popular culture. Much as I dislike IPC articles, it does already exist and there is no valid reason for two of them, nor is the list so long that it cant cover it in both. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jackass Number 3

Jackass Number 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Jackass Number 3" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

WP:CRYSTAL, nothing but WP:OR - failed {{prod}} after sole author objected. Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Apparently they plan to film this one in 3D. Once it's actually done, feel free to recreate the article with the film's actual name. Pburka (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not-quite-yet-ready for primetime. JBsupreme (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The film may become notable once it is released, but there is no evidence that the production of it has achieved notability. --RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Moving to neutral since a number of sources have been added. Some of the coverage is marginal (e.g., MTV, which is not an independent source in this case), but the situation has improved enough to move me away from recommending deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Proposed title is actually Jackass 3D, and we can create it when it actually has more details than the equivalent of 'OMG did you see this Johnny and the gang is back EEEEEE!!' Nate • (chatter) 05:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Switch to Keep As I expected a windfall of sources came out this week and have been added to the article, so the standard of WP:N#FILMS has now been met. Great job on the rescue, Him6969etc... Nate • (chatter) 12:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom DRosin (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and rename Jackass 3D. Star of the movie confirmed its production.[7] According to moviefone, Paramount issued a press release that it will be released October 15, 2010.[8] MTV says the movie will be in 3D.[9] The BBC says the director has been doing camera tests.[10] Hence, many sources and confirmation about its production. See:(Find sources: "Jackass 3D" — search, news, books, scholar, images Him69696969696969 (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I added this information to the article. Him69696969696969 (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with "Him69696969696969". The movie has been confirmed on the official jackass "blog" and by Paramount now. This is one of those cases where the nomination for deletion was valid when it was put forth, but the subject of the article has crossed the threshold for inclusion while the AfD was running. I urge the closing admin to take that into account and either relist this or just disregard earlier comments. Gigs (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom Shadowjams (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Update in the last two days more information about its production has been released. I added some information to the article. Him69696969696969 (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 15:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Relisting comment The article has been expanded with references. However, I am still having problems in deciding whether this makes it notable enough to bypass the CRYSTAL. --Tone 15:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep due to Him69696969696969's expansion. WossOccurring (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This article was nominated for deletion when it was in really bad shape, but has been expanded to show confirmation of this project with several news stories and coverage. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Article now has reliable sources and meets all the requirements to be an article. Much improved from when it was listed. — Ocatecir^T 01:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Jackass series. Doesn't meet WP:NFF but clearly being produced at this point. Merge to the series until it meets WP:NFF for a valid split. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep there are plenty of reliable sources on it now. --AW (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Characters and wildlife in Avatar

Characters and wildlife in Avatar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Characters and wildlife in Avatar" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Entirely regurgitates plot -- either from the primary source or from non-independent supplementary texts. No claim of real-world notability, negligible citations to third-party sources. Fails to offer encyclopedic treatment. Unnecessary fork from content sufficiently and appropriately covered at Avatar (2009 film). --EEMIV (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is an extensive use of incorrect terminologies in your comment: 'entirely regurgitates', 'fails encyclopedic treatment', 'unnecessary fork' and 'sufficiently covered at Avatar (2009 film)'. Please go through and note that the use of these terms are your own personal 'viewpoints and beliefs' and doesn't accurately reflect the actual quality of this article.bhuto (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• DELETE Fancruft! Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:Fancruft: "Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip 20:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Wrong Reason/Comment As pointed out by Ikip, please read the Fancruft article thoroughly. Fancruft is no reason for an article to be deleted. Instead it is the unencyclopedic behavior of the article, for which it is deleted.bhuto (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, but reclaim any useful character information which can be added to the main article. KaySL (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • That would be merge/redirect, as I suggest. Ikip 20:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • There is a lot of materials, include it within the main article will dramatically change the shape of the current article. Not doable. Yug (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
    • As Yug suggested, it will be difficult and inappropriate to merge this vast and minute details of the large world of Pandora, and hence a separate article is very much unavoidable. bhuto (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP This article is highly pertinent, it is Pandora's fauna that defeat the humans whilst the flora form a neural network that covers the entire planet. As for it being "fancruft" so what ? Have you people even seen the great number of Star Trek ? Star Wars ? and Star Gate articles on Wikipedia ? Wikipedia has an article on every single episode of Star Trek ! What about the Simpsons ? - each episode has its own article. If this article cannot stay on Wikipedia then you might as well get rid of the articles on Vulcan and Klingon - they too are articles on fictional worlds. With two more planned sequels, this article's importance will continue to grow. Just because somebody doesn't like the article is no reason to redirect or delete it. If you don't like it, don't read it. Tovojolo (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid keep reason, and except for the episodes most of those are covered in reliable, THIRD-PARTY sources. Wikipedia does no operate on potential future notability, and consider how long it took him to make this film, planned sequels are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not here to provide a haven for fans to put all the minute details of the "fauna and flora" of a fictional world from a single film. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nor is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a valid reason to delete. If the episodes weren't, have you considered deleting those?? You said - Wikipedia is not a haven.....from a single film. Would you have considered, had it been from three films?? Your reasons don't seem to make any justifiable sense. You may not consider this to be a 'haven for fans', but like it or not - in one way or the other IT IS. bhuto (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." Ikip 20:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, certainly agree with Ikip, until third-party citations are not provided.

• Delete consensus on the talk page already supported redirecting it to the main article, but its creator and User:Dream Focus refused to accept that consensus and continued to restore it with false claims that it is needed to provide more plot information on the film. Completely fails WP:N, and purely a repeat of the film plot and original research. Nothing even links to this article. It is purely a hidden article for fan's to put in their pet theories about the film. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Many people were against the redirect. Most post were done the same day, within a short period of time. You tried to redirect the talk page, without giving people enough time to communicate, and others to join in the discussion. Dream Focus 19:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Three people versus eight is more than enough consensus and no one tried to redirect the talk page. Do not tell lies just to try to boost your unstable position. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, more than that were against the redirects, and as someone already pointed out on the talk page, you did not have eight people for it. And assume good faith. Don't go accusing others of lies. Dream Focus 19:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A lie is a lie, and that was a blatant one. Don't tell me to assume good faith while stating falsehoods about actions I made and claiming I tried to stifle discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Do not tell lies" WP:CIVIL please. Ikip 20:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian is requested to check her behavior and her counting. Go back and check the Talk Page and count on a piece of paper, the number of people who were against the redirects. What DreamFocus said is absolutely the truth and not 'a blatant lie' as claimed by you. Your own words on the Talk Page had mentioned seven (whereas it should have been six) and here you say eight. You are contradicting your own statements. I am sorry to reveal, but as a matter of fact - you actually do stifle discussions. This very page itself reflects the number of people interested in the existence of this article. bhuto (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As I said on the talk page, I see it as a valid content split, there valid information that won't fit in the main article. [11] I searched the news archives for the word "Avatar" and then any of the names of the creatures from the film. I see a lot of mentions in the news about this movie, and they all seem to always mention some of the creatures in the film. I think that proves they are clearly notable. The creatures are also mentioned in reviews about the video game based on the film. The three books published about the movie include them as well. I added a bit to the article from the MTV news interview with James Cameron. They stated the creatures were the main reason people were excited about the film, discussing the scene with the dinosaur creature chasing after the main character, in great detail.[12] Dream Focus 19:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

People mentioning the names is not notability. Of course they will be mentioned while giving a synopsis of the film. As usual, you have not provided a single reliable source giving significant coverage of this topic, and rather just throw out google hits and claim that's enough. Three books published by the makes of the film are reliable sources but do not add to notability as no one can make their own notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect with Avatar. Ikip 19:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not possible. It'd just end in delete. No way to fit all that content over there, which is why a side article is important. The amount of press coverage on how the creatures were made, and going into detail about them, should be enough coverage to convince people of notability. Dream Focus 20:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: List of extraterrestrial life in Alien Planet. Seems to be similar in both the positive and negative respects.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

and? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your response was gratifying. :-) I'm waiting to see whether anyone uses it to support keeping this article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete because no effort was made to establish real-world context for these details of a fictional topic. Avatar (2009 film) has plenty of room to develop that context for such details, but the article violated WP:PLOT and WP:WAF from the get-go. Work should be done within the film article, and if there happens to be more than enough information about the conception, design, and realization of such elements, then I would instead recommend a Design in Avatar article. In the meantime, there is nothing to salvage here. Erik (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Merge is my preference now that I have overhauled the article to have real-world context. I still maintain that the split was unwarranted and that the context can exist at the main film article. There is an argument that existing toys and a video game warrant this split, but there has never been much more to say about fictional elements when it comes to these. "These creatures appeared in the video game adaptation of the film. Like in the film, a player can ride some of them." There is not much more to be said that can't be explored in-context at the video game article itself. Erik (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Very reasonable content split. I assume that some of the reviews of the film have talked about some of the characters. If it's more than just listing them, that's RW notability. . To avoid problems, I advise not trying to make pages on individual characters even if sources would technically justify it . Rather, people should make pages such as this. I point out that such is the only reasonable hope for compromise, especially as the film project still is trying to maintain their idiosyncratic guideline against more than cursory mention of characters in film main articles. The actual question is not how to arrange these, or divide them into articles, but whether we should have reasonably full content. I consider afds such as this a test on whether there is willingness to accept compromise. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC) .

• First, we can see on Wikipedia that there are Featured Articles about real-life figures. We do not see Featured Articles about fictional figures that outline their entire biography as presented in the fictional work(s). We see Featured Articles about planets in our universe but not fictional planets in fictional universes as if they were real. We see the same when it comes to fauna and flora. Per WP:WAF, there needs to be a real-world perspective; we are not supposed to reiterate the in-universe perspective, as it is being done here. WikiProject Films acknowledges the need for real-world context; if the analyzing sources are there, we can pull together content. There is no such effort with this article, which is grounded in primary sourcing. As I mentioned in my !vote above, effort should have been made on the film article itself. The film article is the main article on the matter, and we have yet to stretch its size with real-world context. If we can do so, we can do sub-articles like Visual effects in Avatar and Design in Avatar. We cannot automatically assume that a sub-article, especially one as badly written and sourced as this, is necessary. The film article needs to grow as we make contributions, and we can prune it accordingly into sub-articles for easier digestion. Erik (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• There are featured articles about fictional figures. Bulbasaur was once a featured article, listed on the main page. The film article is quite large already, it best to keep some things in a side article. And no one cares what a WikiProject does, those things always just a handful of people that argue nonstop to get their way, and drive others from them. Also, whether you think something is badly written or not, is not a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 03:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• There are no Featured Articles about fictional figures that that outline their entire biography as presented in the fictional work(s). If Featured Articles about fictional figures exist, they are written with a real-world perspective. The point is that this article fails to do so, and the effort should begin at the film article and branch out from there if necessary. Erik (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is not a Featured Article review and such articles, by their nature, are exceptional as we can't feature everything. In order for an article to be deleted, we must instead satisfy ourself that the topic is at the other extreme - utterly hopeless. This is not the case here and so deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - We don't need a page devoted entirely to retelling us the plot in such minute detail that we don't even need to watch the film. Wikipedia is not a substitute for watching the movie. In addition, the page is a clear violation of WP:WAF, borders violating WP:NOR, definite issue of WP:UNDUE, not to mention WP:PLOT. Any real world information is likely going to be pertaining directly to the film, or covered on the film page in general. A brief mentioning about a character in a review of the film doesn't meet the notability criteria for "significant coverage", and unless it can be established that there is such an abundance of real world information about each of these characters that it cannot possibly be covered on the Avatar film page, then there is no reason to have this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• As for real world mention, did anyone watch the link I added to the article about the behinds the scenes thing shown legally on Hulu? Information on how the Banshee was done, would be fascinating for a section of this article I believe. The creatures get plenty of coverage, this setting the standards for what is now possible, and changing the industry forever. They are quite revolutionary. Dream Focus 03:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• It would be better in a "Design" section at Avatar (2009 film), which no one has attempted. There is room to spare. I also recommend citing the book The Art of Avatar to support such a section. That way, we can build up a real-world perspective of fictional elements and not abuse the primary sources so much. Erik (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: nice summary about a interesting imaginary world. There are sources available, and lot of things to describe -like one delete/merging supporters admit-. Merging will not be that easy, since it will dramatically change the main article (Avatar (2009 film))'s shape => keep. Yug (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia do not "summarize" imaginary worlds not at this length without real-world context. The article is grounded in primary sourcing, written like the people and the flora and fauna really exist. You are making the fallacious assumption that this sub-article should exist outside of the main article about the film; there is little precedent for such splitting for a single film. Effort should be made first at the film article, where it can be shaped accordingly. This will not "dramatically" change the article, as you exaggerate; wildlife can be identified in a "Design" section, and their conception, design, and realization can be detailed. Erik (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• First, You don't own what wikipedia do and don't do, and should not state "Wikipedia do not ..." : Wikipedia is FUNDAMENTALLY based on the community's consensus. You use fake arguments, make assumptions on my views, and yes : include the full content (3xA4) of this article into Avatar (2009_film) will unbalance it, unless we accept large content deletion. --Yug (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The ecosystem of this setting is notable and has been compared to Star Wars in its richness. Deletion will not assist us in covering the notable topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• You are using the word "notable" incorrectly here. All these elements are known as part of the main topic, the film itself. Visual effects is another such commonly-reviewed part of the film, but we accommodate details about that just fine in that article. There can be a "Design" section that uses secondary sources to describe the real-world context of these elements. Erik (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• I stand by my usage. The main article upon the film is already too large at 76K. We have spin-off articles for the music and the game and this article seems a fine complement to these, providing a good framework for the ecological background. This is, as I have stated, a notable topic. Here, for example, is a substantial source which discusses the botany of the setting. This is just a fraction of the material which we must consider and cover. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Here is where this article's content should be. One editor said Avatar was like Star Wars; well, let this be Cameron's Wookieepedia! That way, we can get back to writing encyclopedic content. Erik (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, don't play with concepts: we are not talking about accepting 72,000 Avatar relate articles, we are talking about one summary article. I agree with User:A Nobody comments : "per Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state". Stop this now means to rely on article Avatar (2009 film)'s section "Cast and characters" who talk mainly about real actors, and have about 5 sentences really about Avatar's world. Quite harsh for a such raising topic (Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built). Yug (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - There's enough coverage on this film to have 10s of articles that pass the GNG. This is a reasonable (and small) start. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy, Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, Wikipedia:There is no deadline, Wikipedia:What Isn't Grounds for Article Deletion, etc. due to the subject attracting mainstream coverage in reliable sources. See for example Entertainment Weekly #1081 (December 18, 2009) for an article alluded to on its cover "James Cameron on Avatar" with a picture of the main female Na'vi. The seven page long article includes a feature called "8 Things You Need to Know About Avatar" on page 48 of the magazine for which I happen to have a subscription. This listing includes various out of universe development information such as "3. Cameron gave the Na'vi feline features to make them more relatable," as well as other comments about the Na'vi and Pandora. Such information is easily integrated into the article to provide reliably sourced out of universe context that per WP:PRESERVE is at worst mergeable. And that is just scratching the surface of what that and other sources possess. Even HBO on demand has a making of documentary with out of universe discussion of the fictional elements of the film. HBO and Entertainment Weekly and not some kind of niche media. Nor does one need to go to the end of the Earth to find such resources. This movie, which has grossed hundreds of millions of dollars and has therefore been seen by millions worldwide, has already also been adapted to a video game with coutless buyers. Put simply, the idea that aspects of something for which millions of people around the world have seen is not "real world notable" and for which non-fansites cover and discuss the details of this work of fiction in an out of universe manner is not reasonable. Finally, there is no dire or pressing need to delete something that is not a hoax, not libelous, nor a copy vio. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, valid content split. What happened to the human section while i was gone?username 1 (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup once the furor has died down. Why the rush to take things to AfD, really? By the time the dust settles, there will be a number of reliable secondary sources about the topic. No, I don't have a crystal ball, but the media coverage of Avatar is substantial, extensive, and ongoing. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Article seriously needs cleanup (copyediting and sourcing) but its concept is valid, and it's a good content spin-out as pointed out above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. For people who claim it has not verifiable sources - the information is found in magazines and also in the two books released as merchandise for this film. Over a period of time the article sections will be cited appropriately. bhuto (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Article may need cleanup but the content can be found all over internet from official and third party sources.Also some spelling issues must be resolved.
• Strong Delete, I'm sorry, why does a single film need to have an article devoted to non-culturally relevant characters and "wildlife". Sure the film is notable, but not so much the characters. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Because it is NOT a single film, but also a multiplatform video game, etc. Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora, a 224-page book in the form of a field guide to the film's fictional setting of the planet of Pandora, was released by Harper Entertainment on November 24, 2009. Thus, the characters are verifiable through multiple reliable sources and appear in a film, video game, and even as action figures, etc. seen/played by millions of people worldwide. That is notable by both the Wikipedic definition and by the common sense standard. Characters that can be seen on screen, read about in a book as well as in reviews/previews, and played in a video game and as toys are unquestionably culturally relevant. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Absolutely agree with A Nobody. He has made a very good and useful point. bhuto (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Multiple aspects of the film are starting to get serious amounts of significant discussion in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Article is completely useless - relevant info already in the main article on Avatar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.204.34 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep A reasonable fork of a daughter article from a parent one. If merged, this information (especially once worked up and completed) would swamp the original in a quite inappropriate manner. The subject matter is notable. It's a keeper. --Dweller (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep this article. I tried to include the wildlife of Pandora in the Characters list on the main page of AVATAR and someone kept deleting it. I thought of making a new article just for that and someone did it already. The wildlife in Pandora is very important for the movie Avatar including its plot. This article should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedannayya (talk • contribs) 22:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge After reading all of the comments here I believe the article is not needed. The actual film article isn't that large and if there was any useful information in this article it could be moved over there. Relating this article to the world of Star Wars is a bit of a stretch seeing how that universe consists of a plethora of movies and books and this is only one movie. Many of the sources currently on the article are from a fansite (Pandorapedia) which is not a reputable source. There was a comment made that they're are not many sources for this information and that the article should be kept but then that just means there won't be any sources to use. A nice concise copy of the information could be simply added to the main article. --Peppage^tlk 16:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Please note that it is NOT a single film, but also a multiplatform video game, etc. Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora, a 224-page book in the form of a field guide to the film's fictional setting of the planet of Pandora, was released by Harper Entertainment on November 24, 2009. Thus, the characters are verifiable through multiple reliable sources and appear in a film, video game, and even as action figures, etc. seen/played by millions of people worldwide. That is notable by both the Wikipedic definition and by the common sense standard. Characters that can be seen on screen, read about in a book as well as in reviews/previews, and played in a video game and as toys are unquestionably culturally relevant. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I did read where you wrote that up there. I was just mentioning that when compared to Star Wars information there is no comparison. I kinda assumed that video game information would go on the video game article, since it has its own page. The characters exist, I got it. Still doesn't mean the information shouldn't go on the main film article. There are still bad references on the page, perhaps the action figures should be used as a reference. --Peppage^tlk 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Peppage, I do not believe that Pandorapedia is a fan site. This shows that the registrant is 20th Century Fox. In any case, such in-universe descriptions can be located in the "Confidential Report" book A_Nobody mentioned. I've done my best to keep such descriptions belief and to add real-world context. Erik (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok but it sure looks like a fan site. I really expect sites for movies to be professional. This looks like something I could write in a few hours. I hope that the book is used for future references on this article. --Peppage^tlk 05:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• That sounds like a cleanup issue, not a reason for deletion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: This is the most cruftiest cruft I've seen in a long while. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • It is, this trivia belongs on a fan-site. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
      • "Cruft" is a non-academic nonsense term no one takes seriously. This non-trivial information concerning notable fictional subjects verifiable in multiple reliable sources belongs on Wikipedia. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Article about plants on made-up garden planet = Trivia/cruft. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Which is not a legitimate reason for deletion on Wikipedia per WP:ITSCRUFT. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
            • Nice essay. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ryan, it had a lot of in-universe detail before, but I worked on it to have real-world context. At least consider a merge instead so none of this context is lost in deletion. Erik (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry mate although I respect the work you put in, I still feel that this subject is too narrow for inclusion on Wikipedia and would be better served on a fan-site. The fauna stuff stands up better than the rest of the largely unreferenced "Human" and "Navvi" sections. Add any good, new content to the main article, if it survives there, then it's obviously worthy of inclusion. :) Ryan4314 (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Pure cruft, absolutely not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Convince geocities to re-open and put a page there for this. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: If the outcome of the AFD is not to delete the article, I ask everyone who involved (or just reading this) to review my proposed move on the talk page to adjust the scope of the article accordingly. Depending on discussion, a move will be requested officially soon after closure if consensus is not to delete. Erik (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. While this article needs some editing and sourcing, I believe it is worth letting some people add some more about this movie. The 300 hundred million dollars were not all spent on computers - some thought is in it too, you only need to recognize it. I added the picture of the earth-based animal that inspired one the Avatar fauna ; I suppose quite a lot of the movie deliberately points at things, and I believe it is worth it to mention them.--Environnement2100 (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. With over 50K page views since the page was created one week ago (source), the topic is certainly notable. In addition to all the mainstream coverage in reliable sources, there is enough information that can be used to create a useful article. The main article is already long enough, so merging the content from this article into the other article will only make it harder for readers to get a good overview of the topic. The fact that Avatar already is an entire franchie, with more movies likely to be released in the future, in addition to video games on multiple consoles and at least one book about the topic makes this a significant subject. Mathias-S (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It appears to be a standard fictional character article, well referenced and too large to be merged into the main article. As a lover of Russian fiction, I know you can't have just one article for complex stories with multiple characters. And of course this a vertical franchise with a book, and a video game. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It is fine, it goes deeper into this subject. However, the "Reception" section should be deleted. --User:PocketPup 21:42 29 December 2009
• Merge to Avatar (2009 film). I wish we could see less emphasis placed on arguments over an subject's notability and more on what's best for those wanting to learn about it. There's little doubt that there is decent material here, or at the very least the prospect of good material being added in the future. But I've seen little consideration of what's best for our readers, a group we often forget when arguing over whether a subject "deserves" its own article. In this case, the useful material would sit far more comfortably and conveniently in the parent article, where that wider context, that framework, would allow it to be better understood and valued. Steve ^T • C 20:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Needs some work of course but a decent start. For those who think this sort of thing is an unnecessary extension of the main article, try looking at Template:Middle-earth and drill down into the lists of Peoples, Realms etc. that provide navigation into hundreds of articles. Of course, I doubt we will need to go "quite that far with Avatar" (could become a catchphrase) but I think a properly referenced article explaining some of the background detail is more than acceptable - and if I may so I very little time for much of the mass of "in popular culture" trivia and borderline spam that we routinely tolerate here. Tslolam? Ben MacDui 21:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC) PS Quite agree with PocketPup re the "Reception" section etc.
• Keep The ecosystem plays a major role in the film, it's a major film, and there's too much information for it to be folded into the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarkonnen (talk • contribs) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] One shot (music video)

One shot (music video) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "One shot (music video)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable element of cinematography, complete with an unsourced list of examples. (WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:LISTCRUFT) WossOccurring (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. We have an article on Long take already, that might be the appropriate place to mention that this is also used in music videos. Fences&Windows 23:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like a good list single take music videos which can expand over time. Eveswing (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Denizen (2010 film)

Denizen (2010 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Denizen (2010 film)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Unremarkable film. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. A "making-of" short appears to have won an award, not this film. Note that the DoorQ reference is actually a blog. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss. I disagree with the proposal for deletion.

I appreciate your guidance on adding more references from resources.

When seeking out references to establish the notability of a film, and to provide the necessary information for a thorough article of high quality, consider some of these resources:

A film's entry in the The Internet Movie Database can provide valuable information, including links to reviews, articles, and media references. A page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability, however. Film and entertainment periodicals abound. Many magazines in Category:Film magazines can provide good references and indicators of notability.

I did some more research this evening and have added references from local newspaper, film and entertainment periodicals.

It is a yet undistributed film, but is notable.

Some films that don't pass the standard notability may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant. The sources for Denizen are verifiable.

The Denizen article features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person, JA Steel, and is a major part of her career.

J.A. Steel, one of the few female directors in the industry. She is a director, producer, actor, editor, fight choreographer and stunt person, in addition to writer and composer.

The article on the Denizen film was created as there enough information on the film that it would clutter up the biography page of J.A. Steel if it was mentioned there.

The short film was about the filmmaker and the making of the film Denizen, and the struggles she has had while working a hostile industry, 92% dominated by men.

If you have access to IMDB Pro, you will see Denizen (http://www.pro.imdb.com/title/tt1194424/), is in the Top 35 completed features awaiting release (http://www.pro.imdb.com/inproduction/status-completed). This is a major accomplishment by a female director.

A lot of this discussion is about Steel's achievements as a female film director. That is arguably evidence for her notability, but doesn't make the film notable per se. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some additional references for Denizen that I found this evening that are not included in the Wikipedia article:

http://www.parkcityfilmmusicfestival.org/screenings.html

This seems to be a minor award (silver medal in a minor music festival competition) for the impact of music in a short film: is this not also about the documentary? --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

http://cinemafantastique.be/Denizen.html

This basically describes Steel as a producer of low-budget movies with low distribution numbers and anticipates Denizen to be another in the same vein, for example saying that the monster is more likely to make you laugh than scream.

http://www.cinemafantastique.net/Interview-de-Tiffany-Shepis-scream.html

This is an interview where one of the actors basically just says that she can't say much about the film. Not much support for notability. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8xyn0_ja-steel-denizen-sundance-2009_shortfilms

http://www.oklahomafilm.org/uploads/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20FINALAdvisory%20Board%20Report%20-%20April%202008.pdf

This just mentions the film in passing. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather than proposing deletion, I would appreciate your help in improving the article as others have done. There are a few hundred articles on upcoming films, many in 2009 and 2010, that might also benefit from your assistance.

Thanks so much.

Action grrl (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: not notable as such: minor low-budget as-yet unreleased action movie. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep and assist-Action grrl's request to improve the article is both reasonable and kind, traits rarely seen when articles are put up for AfD. I would say this show of good faith buys her some good faith in return, what say you, Wikipedians? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Hi Chris, I agree that we are seeing ample evidence of good faith, and we should be careful not to be impolite, but the test for notability is independent of who's asserting it, and I just don't see the evidence here! --Slashme (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment I really appreciate all of the interest shown, and the assistance provided for improvement, both to me and the article. I have learned so much in this process. I hope that those who advocate for deletion will reflect on the references in the article about the production, and consider what this woman has overcome to bring this independent action film to completion on a micro-budget, such as "Interview with J.A. Steel". Killing Boxx. 2008-12-01. http://www.killingboxx.com/interviews/JA_Steel.html.  And then perhaps contemplate the industry review of the pre-release version at "B Movie Man Review of Denizen (2010)". B Movie Man. 2009-11-25. http://bmovieman.com/Denizen.aspx.  The review is by a recognized expert in the genre, who watched the film and describes the unique stunt work, far-flung locations and complex plot, notable for independent film projects. The award mentioned above from the Park City Music Festival was for the music video/trailer for the movie Denizen itself, not the short film on the behind-the-scenes, which also won an award. My speculation is that there will be future awards for the film, and additional critical acclaim, though time will tell, just as it will for the other to-be released upcoming films. Thanks for all of your help. --Action grrl (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Added 10th reference for article, from Pretty Scary: For Women in Horror by Women in Horror. Action grrl (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

'Comment The references you added to the article are NOT RELIABLE, no one can check if they are telling the truth. WP:RELIABLE --MisterWiki talk contribs 03:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Dailymotion video was uploaded by himself, not by a news coverage of the website itself.
2. There are needed third-party sources, not by the organization.
3. Isn't IMDB Pro can be edited by the same users and add info about they? http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Fhelp%2Fshow_leaf%3Fresumeaddnewname&ei=5NE2S4_gGcufuAe2otCcBw&usg=AFQjCNG15rpl8uJGFaWMwp86LpFvuARfuQ&sig2=U-IPE1UPSwUQISvjHzOtcA --MisterWiki talk contribs 03:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The references in the article include third-party sources such as: Pretty Scary: For Women in Horror by Women in Horror; Muskogee Phoenix newspaper; Killing Boxx web news; JobLo Movie Network News web news; FilmStew.com (a Yahoo! Entertainment contributor); B Movie Man; Human Rights Campaign; Tulsa World newspaper; and the Nevada Film Festival. All are available to the world to check.

The information listed on IMDB can be submitted by an individual or company; howerver, it is approved by administrators and is subject to peer review. It appears you are confusing the issues of adding information to the IMDB and the StarMeter I referenced. http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?prowhatisstarmeter

For films to be listed in the IMDB, they have to be published in the Hollywood Reporter or Variety magazine, or they can be approved by an IMDB administrator, if accepted into a Withoutabox sanctioned film festival. Films not meeting this criteria are removed, thus a third-party source verifies the information for the film on the IMDB.

Out of over 3 million people listed on the IMDB, this week JA Steel is ranked 2,925 on the StarMeter or in the top 99.9% of those in the entertainment business, by the 57 million people who visit IMDB each month.

J.A. Steel, and her film Denizen (2010), meet the standards of Wikipedia for reliability and notability. Assistance to improve the article is most welcome. Thank you.

Action grrl (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Action grrl, please understand, the article of that film is not notable, it is not 2010 now and the sources (probably you provided) are not reliable, sorry. --MisterWiki talk contribs 23:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: MisterWikitalk There are 10 independent references in the article. They are all available for investigation and review. They are reliable. Any person in the entertainment industry can attest to this fact. The interview with the filmmaker is on the RealTV website about the film: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=55568695&__preferredculture=en-US&__ipculture=en-US As to the release date, there are several hundred articles on upcoming films, many in 2009 and 2010, on Wikipedia. This week, Denizen is ranked 2,766 on the IMDB MovieMeter, out of over one million past, present and upcoming films in the database, placing it in the top 99.93% of all movies notable and reliable enough to make it into the industry database. You can sign up for a two-week free trial of IMDbPro and investigate it for yourself, and learn a lot about the movie business in the process. The film does indeed meet the requirements of notable, as defined by Wikipedia and articulated in my comments you lined out above. This article has been tagged by an Editor for Rescue, so this deletion debate is moot. Again, I urge you help build, rather than tear down. Thanks. Action grrl (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry but MySpace is not reliable (maybe the worst source that Wikipedia could reference). --MisterWiki talk contribs 23:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I have a strange feeling that you are J.A. Steel. You cannot spam your works here in Wikipedia, sorry, but wait until another person write a article for 'your' film. --MisterWiki talk contribs 23:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Also, take a look at WP:AUTO. --MisterWiki talk contribs 23:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
        • It is unfortunate that the totality of the references continue to be ignored. The MySpace site of RealTV is a news outlet with interviews from people throughout the entertainment industry. However, it is not referenced in the article, and is again a moot point. I am aware of WP:AUTO, and it is not applicable. However, it appears WP:HA might be a more appropriate policy for discussion. Action grrl (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but the references you provided are not reliable. This is not harassment, but please take a look at WP:RS. Myspace, blogs, and other kind of sources are not reliable. If you have a source like BBC or a reliable newspaper, let me know, if not, your article will be deleted. --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
            • Comment Firstly I'm assuming good faith, but good faith can't overrule policy. More I can't find any reliable sources. They may become available upon release however. [13] leads me to believe this may become true. I myself am not that well acquanted with policy on this matter, but looking into it it doesn't matter if it may become notable. It must be notable now. Therefore... NativeForeigner (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
            • Clarification: I can't find any reliable sources showing importance. NativeForeigner (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Tentative Delete for the above reasons in the comment NativeForeigner (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.:: -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable film, made by non-notable people, starring non-notable actors. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment In the past few weeks, I have observed several articles relating to the work of Lesbian filmmakers and Lesbian actress summarily deleted off of Wikipedia. These articles were notable to our community, and they are important to us. There appears to be an unfortunate trend of Deletionism and bias on Wikipedia. There are several reliable sources provided in the article that are standard mediums of communication and news in the movie industry and the LGBT community. The claim that they are not reliable sources appears to demonstrate a lack of this understanding for our community. I have made my case, I have welcomed collaboration, I have appealed for understanding. If an Administrator is able to place the article into my workshop, I would appreciate the assistance. Thank you. Action grrl (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Whether or not the filmaker is gay or not isn't a factor that I even consider. I could care less. Not notable is not notable. I do, however, discount niche publications that cover only items that promote their cause/agenda/whatever. The reasoning you use is no different than the ones used by Pokemon fans, Star Wars fans or the followers of different religious factions. Notability is about a single "community". Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete After going through each reference and examining them one at a time it appears to me that most of the refs are not reliable sources. The truly RS does a good job of describing the movie, but I am concerned that this doesn't establish notability on its own. If more RSes can be added then I am sure I can suggest keeping the article, but for now it is a weak delete. Basket of Puppies 06:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I have just done some major clean-up on the article, addresing many of the nominator's concerns. It would be prudent to allow expansion and further sourcing as film gets its 2010 theatrical release in a few weeks. Note: the film (not just the "making of short) has already screened at festivals such as Sundance. And yes, genre-specific reviews are often dismissed out-of-hand... but they are indicative of the growing attention the film is receiving. Further, the article now includes several in-depth reliable sources toward meeting WP:NF through WP:GNG, and it is reasonable to presume that more will come with general release, not less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} . I appreciate your motto, I'd rather fix the damn pipe than complain about having wet feet. - MQS And, your experience and collaboration...and time...as an Editor is so very appreciated. Action grrl (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Again you are referencing not-rs. The article will be deleted if you don't provide a RELIABLE SOURCE. Also, 2nd reference says CNN but it is iReport. --MisterWiki talk contribs 14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment I can only suppose with good faith that you somehow missed the header "CNN iReport" at the top of the page you dismiss. And to emulate your need for emphasis, per WP:RS, "HOW RELIABLE A SOURCE IS, AND THE BASIS FOR ITS RELIABILITY, DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT." Reasonable editors might see that even Wikipedia policy recognizes and accepts that a small-budget, independent film pending release might not receive the same press as a big-budget, highly-touted, blockbuster film full of notables. This filmaker and her film have, so far, more coverage than might be expected toward meeting WP:NF through WP:GNG for such, and it is reasonable to presume that more will come with general release, not less. Guideline allows that each might be considered for what it is... not what it is not. At the very least, incubation might well be considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Comment Appears that you missed the "i". I-Report. Anybody can report. Not reliable. I can write that Wikipedia is the worst encyclopedia ever in iReport, and is it reliable?. No. --MisterWiki talk contribs 17:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per all the reasons above.--MisterWiki talk contribs 14:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • One might think that even failure of reason might make it difficult to ignore the coverage [14][15][16][17], even if supported by genre-specific reviews. Thank you for again making your opinion very clear. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I reviewed the links you provided. Unfortunately, the first 2 are reliable, but not too much, they appear to be a primary source, like the other ones, and the blog pages. --MisterWiki talk contribs 17:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Found with a diligent search are a number of genre-specific reviews from genre-specific reviewers that are not primary sources. User:Action grrl mentioned a few up above, but there are more. But because they do not yet have their own articles on Wikipedia (as do such as Fangoria, Bloody-Disgusting, DVD Talk, FEARnet, Film Threat, & Rue_Morgue), I hesitated to list them here... no matter that they are independent of the production and are considered within their field of expertise to be generally authoritative on the topic of horror film... because I did not wish this to devolve into a debate on how expectations for being authoritative on the subject of independent horror films for sites like FEARnet or Bloody-Disgusting and their kin, might or might not compare with New York Times or Washington Post being authoritative in other areas. Its like a comparison of Apples and Spinach... both having something to offer, but not useful in the same ways. And no... I am not speaking about blog pages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• strong keep very well referenced article. Ikip 17:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think that these sources are very reliable. Even in context, they are at best adequate when looking at policy. Why do you feel that it is why referenced? Thanks, NativeForeigner (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. The article is premature, and the film is not-yet-notable. If and when this film receives substantial coverage I have no objection to the Wikipedia article being recreated. JBsupreme (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that the article is low budget, maybe it will never be notable. --MisterWiki talk contribs 21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Natasha (film)

Natasha (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Natasha (film)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Related to this AfD. From Blanchardb's prod which was just removed by an IP (and marked as minor, too, which I think is wrong to do (along with re-adding copyrighted material)): "Movie with no assertion of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases (like this one), readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability. Alison22 (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I've had trouble with this one. A movie titled Maverick in which Natasha Richardson was considered for a major role at one point led to truckloads of false positives. But I was unable to find the needle in that haystack, and so unless I'm mistaken, there are no reliable sources to be found. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I found several instances where DVDs are being sold, and this "press release" review, but I do not see anything to satisfy WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Jag Mundhra and source per India Currents, Twitch Film, Film Critics United, Sify, and even perhaps with Bollyvista. Its enough, with work, to bring the article into line. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: relisted to obtain more comments on MichaelQSchmidt's sources. Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cain and Abel (film)

Cain and Abel (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Cain and Abel (film)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From Smartse's prod: "I can't find any sources to establish the notability of this film." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed to Keep: Per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources other than IMDB. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Change to Keep per Schmidt, although the URLs given are the movie's producers' own archives. The Venice festival website seems to be totally neutral, however. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I too cannot find requisite sources needed to establish the notability of this film. JBsupreme (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per The Advocate, Voice Tribune, Baton Rouge, Courrier Journal. Heck it even won an audience award at Other Venice Film Festival. Let's try to improve it, not toss it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Prisoners of Society

Prisoners of Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Prisoners of Society" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Contested prod. Movie in pre-production with no assertion of notability. Also, the article on the production house is currently nominated for speedy deletion has been speedied. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete supposedly upcoming movie not on IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Nathan Phillips without prejudice toward recreation as seperate article when film can meet WP:NF. There's some available now telling us that this will be Nathan Phillips directorial debut and that the the comedy is expected to begin shooting next year.[32][33] Wikipedia can wait for more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete unnotable film that fails WP:NFF and WP:N. I do not understand the suggestion to redirect it to a disambig page given above. The director is also unnotable, so nothing to redirect to. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

• Category:Anacondas films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 18#Category:Anacondas films (16 May 2009 – 26 May 2009) Deleted
• Category:Jewish film and theatre at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Category:Jewish film and theatre (16 May 2009 – 27 May 2009) No Consensus
• Category:Films shot in stereoscopy at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Category:Films shot in stereoscopy (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
• Category:Science fiction crews in film and television at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#2009 May 16 (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
• Category:Beethoven films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
• Category:The Bourne films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
• Category:Candyman films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
• Category:Child's Play at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
• Category:Class of Nuke 'Em High films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
• Category:Critters films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
• Category:Xxx films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 14#Category:Xxx films (14 May 2009 – 26 May 2009) Deleted
• Category:B-movie directors at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 3#Category:B-movie directors (3 January 2009 – 9 January 2009) Deleted

[edit] Templates

• Template:Mick Jackson at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 17#Template:Mick Jackson (17 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Kept
• Template:Rogerebert at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 31#Template:Rogerebert (31 March 2009 – 4 April 2009) Deleted
• Template:American film at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 5#Template:American film (5 March 2009 – 14 March 2009) Deleted

[edit] Proposed deletions

For future film notifications, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films/Proposed deletions

• Cruel Jaws (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
• Double Target (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
• KZ9 (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
• Porno Holocaust (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
• Rats: Night of Terror (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
• SS Girls (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deprodded
• Sexy Night Report (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
• Strike Commando (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted