Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

Deletion discussions relating to filmmakers, directors and other non-actor film-related people should no longer be listed on this page. Please list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers instead.

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Film. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Film|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Film. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Film AfDs

Scan for Film Prods
Scan for Film template TfDs

Related deletion sorting

Film

Section 108 (film)

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

Upcoming film that doesn't meet WP:NFF. Could be moved to draft space, but there's nothing in the article to show how this meets NFF. Ravensfire (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Move to draft space or display maintenance tags for more verified sources which are available. WP:NFF state Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles ... However, this article provide information albeit from an individual's point of view. In addition [1] provide some context as well. QEnigma (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets NFF with the coverage about production; filming has started and is well advanced, premise known, cast confirmed, production issues mentioned. Even if it is never released it would remain a sufficiently-notable production. -Mushy Yank. 12:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since we cannot enforce NFF to movies which have reliable sources confirming the start of principal photography/production after filming began, deletion is not warranted.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Mike (disambiguation)

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

There is only one topic with the name "Magic Mike." Plants vs. Zombies (disambiguation) was deleted for similar reasons. GilaMonster536 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: see WP:SETINDEX -Mushy Yank. 08:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Two partial matches and one legit entry (plus DJ Magic Mike, who is covered by the hatnote in the primary topic). The partial matches are also covered by Magic Mike#Sequels. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese films of 2026

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

WP:TOOSOON, It's premature to create this list. Royiswariii Talk! 10:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Royiswariii Talk! 10:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I agree that it's WP:TOOSOON for an article of this nature to exist, however I think the article creator should be allowed to work on it further and republish it in the future when more 2026 Japanese films get announced instead of immediately deleting it. I think an article like this should exist, just not right now. Beachweak (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Standard. Not that early. Useful for navigation. There is a List of American films of 2026, for example. -Mushy Yank. 02:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mushy Yank. Two years is standard for film production nowadays. We're almost in 2025. Many elections, films, music tours, major conferences and conventions, and athletic competitions are organized 14 to 24 months in advance. I've already seen speculation about 2033. Bearian (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmalokam To Yamalokam Via Bhulokam

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

Fails WP:NFILM since the creation of this article [2]. A search in English or Telugu yield no reliable sources [3]. Only sources found were passing mentions: [4] [5] [6]. Webdunia production source(no link on Wikipedia) isn't enough to save the article. DareshMohan (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Telugu films of 2010#July–December: but given the participation of notable film personalities, not opposed to Keep. -Mushy Yank. 07:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added two reviews from the sources available. Please check if it can suffice - Herodyswaroop (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- does not suffice. Both GreatAndhra and 123telugu are unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force. DareshMohan (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

58 Seconds

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

Fails WP:NFILM; there's nothing from a cursory search to also substantiate notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, and Hungary. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this sorted in Television-related AfDs? I don't think this is a TV production. -Mushy Yank. 12:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Was unable to find any online sources about this film. As it stands, it fails WP:NFILM. Though, part of me wonders if there are any offline sources considering the film was made in 1964; if there are multiple reliable sources covering this film from something like a newspaper then I would consider keeping it. Beachweak (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is the first and noted film of a notable director (https://nfi.hu/en/core-films-1/films-3/documentaries-1/58-seconds.html) (see NFIC: involves a notable person and is a major part of their career) A Redirect to Lívia Gyarmathy#Filmography, a standard alternative to deletion when the director is notable and has a page on this WP, seems warranted anyway [edited after having improved the page]. -Mushy Yank. 12:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 12:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 22:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sundarangudu

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

Fails WP:NFILM. A cursory search didn't help. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a television film. Why was this listed on the Television Project's alert list?-Mushy Yank. 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No review of the film other than the announcement of the release of the film. It fails WP:NFILM. Mekomo (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Telugu_films_of_2021#October_–_December -Mushy Yank. 15:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Telugu_films_of_2021#October_–_December. RangersRus (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyar Mori Re

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to find independent sources with significant coverage. The existing sources about and around "Saiyar Mori Re" are mostly routine coverage and paid PR/brand content, failing WP:NFSOURCES. I am also unable to find the minimum number of full length reviews, so it fails WP:NFILM entirely. The sources mentioned in the previous XfD are paid PR, as evident from the bylines and reviews from unknown websites/blogs. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, India, and Gujarat. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this added to the Actors and Filmmakers list? It's a film not a person. -Mushy Yank. 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See precedent AfD and arguments presented by User:DareshMohan, for example. A redirect seems warranted anyway (same comment) so that I am opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 19:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freelance journalist/blogger, Brand promoted content and an article from an unknown website with no byline? Can you please read the nomination statement and WP:NFILM guideline once again and consider revising your rationale to a policy based one instead of how you feel about deletion? Here are some more PR articles that they have given out: [7], [8], [9] Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please read DareshMohan's argument? Gujarat is not a "country" but I consider the film meets NFILM's inclusionary criterion #3, if you really wish me to provide a link to a guideline. I'll stand by my !vote, if I may. I've added a couple of things to the page, rapidly. -Mushy Yank. 20:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you have added so far is just brand promoted content, routine coverage and passing mentions with no bylines. Nearly five years on Wikipedia, yet how you interpret WP:NFIC to fit your own views is astonishing.

Here, "distributed domestically in a country" means distributed within India. This film didn't see the light outside Gujarat and we are not maintaining a database of films released in India, but rather of notable films released in India. Comparing WP:NFIC#3's weight of a film being released/distributed domestically in a country is nowhere close to that of a film being distributed within a state. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"didn't see the light outside Gujarat" is an absurd rationale. Indian cinema, being the largest producer of films globally, comprises multiple industries based on language and regional distinctions. The subject here being included in the Gujarati cinema, though less prominent than its counterparts like Bollywood or Tollywood, is still a significant part of this spectrum. Drawing a comparison between Gujarati cinema and the broader, more commercially dominant segments of Indian cinema is flawed. Keep in mind that Wikipedia:Notability is not a level playing field. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bring essays here. If you want to change existing policies, start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films).

The current guidelines only support films that are successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film-producing country. You have contradicted yourself by mentioning "Indian cinema, being the largest producer of films globally". WP:NFIC#3 does not apply to major film producing countries and if Saiyar Mori Re were a significant part of this spectrum, it would have received reviews in reliable sources. Instead, it only has paid PR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your tone out! this is a discussion space, essays, statements, facts and all are legit here. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems the nominator has completely overlooked sources from TOI and other reputable outlets (which still lack full consensus on reliability). With that, giving an additional consideration and collectively reviewing the coverage's from the sources from TOI, TOI 2, TOI 3, One India and from the Gujarati media: navgujaratsamay, gujaratheadline and abtakmedia as well as the film's feature at the International Gujarati Film Festival 2023 is enough for notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- TOI - Interview / Not independent / Pre-release coverage - Jun 14, 2022 (Part of PR)
- One India - Partner content as indicated at the top - July 14, 2022 (Part of PR)
- navgujaratsamay - Press release from trailer launch - Jun 27 (Part of PR)
- gujaratheadline - Same as navgujaratsamay article / Press release from trailer launch - Jun 25 (Part of PR)
- abtakmedia - Same as above / Press release from trailer launch - July 04, 2022
- International Gujarati Film Festival 2023 - Trivial mention / no awards
None of the above news media outlets covered or reviewed the film after its release. It seems you have overlooked both the sources and the nomination rationale. Would you mind sharing your source analysis below? Mims Mentor Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira Before diving into a source analysis, could you clarify or provide evidence for your claim that each of all sources mentioned are "(part of PR)"? — MimsMENTOR ^talk 11:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of coverage following the film's release is sufficient evidence. Apart from that, the OneIndia article is marked as "Partner Content". As for the trailer launch, inviting all the news media is standard practice and has been done this way consistently. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about the "partner content", I do agree with that. However, when I emphasized the need for "collective reviewing" and "additional consideration" of the sources. I recognize that the coverage may not be strong enough to 'firmly keep' the article, but your own analysis doesn't solidly push for deletion either, leaning more towards WP:BARE. As for PR evidence, there isn't concrete proof to back up that claim you made (when you are talking about policies). Pre-release/press release (earned media) coverage isn’t inherently promotional, and reputable outlets like TOI often feature pre-release interviews without the coverage being purely PR-driven. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 12:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are bringing in more essays to XfDs. Please understand that essays are not P&G and hold no significant value in XfDs. The TOI sources are insufficient for a standalone article, especially given that there are literally zero reviews available. There are three articles about the trailer launch featuring the same banner image, yet you believe this isn't sufficient evidence that the press was invited to the event. The sources here are nowhere close to meeting GNG or NFILM. If you disagree, please provide a source analysis that might help me better understand your point of view. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essays arent binding, but they offer relevant interpretations in debates like XfDs, especially for borderline cases. Dismissing them outright doesnt negate their value in offering nuance. The TOI sources, while not extensive, still provide verifiable coverage. Prerelease coverage is common, even for non-blockbuster films. Moreover, you havent fully explained why multiple outlets covering the same trailer launch definitively proves PR involvement. The case is WP:BARE now. I believe I’ve made it clear what aspects of the discussion align with GNG, based on policy guidelines. The nominator seems fixated on a single point and dismisses valid considerations by labeling them "essays," which is unproductive. Since the conversation is going in circles, I’ll be stepping back. I suggest exploring more sources from Gujarati media to verify additional coverage of the film instead of narrowing the focus to a single angle.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, no source analysis? Cool. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? to count in more essay? Sorry No! — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These sources can be used to write an article, but they certainly do not meet the standards required to establish GNG and there are no sources available after the film's release. Regarding WP:NFILM, there are literally no reviews for this film, despite it being released in the internet era. The fact that all the sources below greatly appreciate the film, its songs, trailer and its success, yet none of them have published a review, is quite amusing.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movie-details/saiyar-mori-re/movieshow/92209803.cms				✘ No
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/business/k-brothers-produced-saiyar-mori-re-wins-the-hearts-of-the-audience-as-anticipated-after-the-trailer-release20220713132245/	Story is provided by GPRC (Global PR Connect)	?		✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/saiyar-mori-re-new-song-manda-lidha-mohi-raj-is-winning-hearts-on-the-internet/articleshow/92653580.cms	Entertainment Desk / No byline			✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/mayur-chauhan-on-saiyar-mori-re-i-am-feeling-akhand-mauj-exclusive/articleshow/92200116.cms	Interview			✘ No
https://www.zee5.com/articles/k-brothers-produced-saiyar-mori-re-wins-the-hearts-of-the-audience-as-anticipated-after-the-trailer-release	Story is provided by GPRC (Global PR Connect)	?		✘ No
https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/2022/Jul/08/meet-kariyas-saiyar-mori-re-celebrates-rural-flavours-of-india-2474459.html	Express News Service / No byline		~	✘ No
https://www.oneindia.com/partner-content/jay-kariyas-debut-film-saiyar-mori-re-is-out-now-and-the-audience-can-t-get-enough-of-it-3433537.html	Partner content	?		✘ No
https://www.mynation.com/entertainment/film-saiyar-mori-re-wins-over-the-audience-despite-its-experimental-approach-filmmakers-express-sigh-snt-reuiuy	featured content / No byline	?		✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/watch-saiyar-mori-re-makers-will-soon-drop-a-teaser/articleshow/92082623.cms	Entertainment Desk / No byline			✘ No
https://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/gujarati-films-go-global/81859967.html			Passing mention	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/mayur-chauhan-unveils-the-first-look-of-his-saiyar-mori-re/articleshow/92034340.cms	Interview		Routine coverage from an Instagram Post	✘ No
https://navgujaratsamay.com/love-story-based-film-saiyar-mori-re--a-turning-point-in-the-gujarati-film-industrys-history/221700.html	Trailer launch press release	?		✘ No
https://www.gujaratheadline.com/%e0%aa%b9%e0%aa%b0%e0%aa%bf-%e0%aa%95%e0%aa%b0%e0%ab%87-%e0%aa%8f-%e0%aa%b8%e0%aa%be%e0%aa%9a%e0%ab%81/	Trailer launch press release	?		✘ No
https://www.abtakmedia.com/god-do-is-the-best-rural-areas-love-story-sayer-mori-re/	Abtak Media / No byline	?		✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/the-international-gujarati-film-festival-igff-returns-with-its-4th-edition-in-chicago-usa-this-year-exclusive/articleshow/101098950.cms			Passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NEWSORGINDIA applies to many of these references. The sources assessment shows these to not be reliable as far as notability is concerned. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Source assessment table is thoroughly convincing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The London Scene (film)

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

Article about a television documentary film, not properly sourced as passing either WP:NFILM or WP:TVSHOW. As always, films (regardless of their status as theatrical or television films) are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show some evidence of their significance (awards, cultural impact, etc.) referenced to WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them -- but this cites no referencing at all, and even its external link is a dead directory listing that just redirects back to the front splash page of the site rather than to any profile of the film, while searching that site for this film title fails to bring up evidence of any profile existing at a different URL either.
As I don't have good access to archived British media coverage from the 1960s, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who does have such access can find enough coverage to salvage this, but simple existence isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have any sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survival (TV series), which already has a paragraph about it as the first Survival film. While there are references to it in books about nature documentaries, it seems to always be in the context of the series - and looking at TV listings for 1st February 1961, it only aired in London, Anglia and the Southeast, which will limit contemporary reviews. It's a plausible search term, though, so the redirect is probably worthwhile. Adam Sampson (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My usual source-check is confounded by the (probably not coincidental) Virginia Woolfe work of the same name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iddaru (2024)

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

Duplicate article of another one that exists hidden in the page history of Iddaru (2024 film), which is clearly about the same film, though it isn't entirely clear why that article was BLARed. Both articles should be merged if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is Oppanda Kannada Language Movie releaseed in 2022, But Iddaru is remake Movie in Telugu Languagw Movie. The Iddaru (2024 film) can be Murged or redirected to this article Sudheerbs (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: can you explain what are the reasons for deletion for this article?

The history seems to be

23 October 2024 Iddaru (2024 film) created by @Monhiroe:
25 October 2024 Iddaru (2024 film) redirected to Oppanda as a dubbed version by @DareshMohan:
26 November 2024 Iddaru (2024) created by @Sudheerbs:
26 November 2024 Iddaru (2024 film) redirected to Iddaru (2024) by Sudheerbs
26 November 2024 Iddaru (2024) nominated for deletion by CycloneYoris
The only discussion I have found is at Talk:Oppanda#@Telugu film dubbed in Kannada? started by @Herodyswaroop:
The Telugu article seems to be at te:ఇద్దరు (2023 సినిమా). TSventon (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: I haven't expressed any desire to delete this article, and brought it to AfD mainly because of the duplicate article that exists, which is why I suggested to merge it with the existing one. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had this discussion before, this is a kannada movie dubbed in telugu and @Dareshmohan has confirmed this. So, we can merge with Oppanda article and mention iddaru is its telugu version comment added by Herodyswaroop (talk • contribs) 12:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore redirect of Iddaru (2024 film) to Oppanda per Herodyswaroop. Dubbed / partially reshot films do not get articles. Read Talk:Oppanda#@Telugu film dubbed in Kannada? for proof that the film is dubbed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamadheera (2024 film) for the precedent set that dubbed films do not get articles. The definition of a partially reshot film is a film where a minor part of the film was reshot and a majority wasn't. See List of multilingual Indian films#Partially reshot films, 99% of partially reshot films, do not get articles. The one instance where it has a separate article, 50% of the film was in fact reshot. The reason that this film can not get a separate article is that the lip sync issues are clear from the trailer itself. This [10] lacks lip sync while the same dialogue from the original [11] is in perfect lip sync.

As per the comment at the Indian cinema taskforce here, even if they are reshot partially, it still doesn’t need a separate article. If we are to delve into original research, they reshot a single dialogue in Telugu here vs the original here. The makers of the film were smart enough to release the same trailer as the original version. Complete with English dialogues, only the English dialogues would be in lip sync. When the trailer itself lacks lip sync, do you expect the film to be a straight film?

Regarding the Telugu wiki, even dubbed Telugu films get an article there. Apart from Hindi, since the 1990s several films have been dubbed in Telugu and became mainstream. DareshMohan (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back: to Oppanda. Dubbed movies should be mentioned on the page of the original film, rather than having a standalone article.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 12:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oppanda: Dubbed film. It can be redirect Monhiroe (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Oppanda and redirect: If it's notable, I'll go for keep, but for now, hmmm..... Intrisit (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is telugu stright film,this film made by telugu tamil and Kannada langues, each and every shot shooted in three langueges. Pandu147 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this one This movie is indian telugu language movie. AND PLZ ACTIVATE IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandu147 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus yet. Also, keep !votes, kindly provide your rationale why the article should be kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffer shot

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; sources for this are not apparent and if they were, this appears to be just a minor film technique. "Noddy" already covers use in news and interviews. There are currently no references. Nominating for AFD rather than boldly merging to see if there's any writing on buffer shots that I am missing. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glossary of motion picture terms per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) -- Dr Greg talk 02:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They’re both editing techniques using insertion of material but their respective goals are opposite (variety/continuity), so merging is not necessary and might be confusing, don’t you think? -Mushy Yank. 05:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It’s covered in reliable sources so I cannot see why it should be merged into another page. -Mushy Yank. 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 04:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Glossary of motion picture terms. While there have been several sources added, the entire article is a few sentences and could easily be merged into the article. AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could, but why should it be merged? -Mushy Yank. 16:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank The article is currently a WP:DICDEF. DICDEF articles are not allowed, so we usually handle content like this inside glossaries. The encyclopedia won't lose any of this content it will just be housed in a different spot to comply with DICDEF. The cats can even remain on the redirect page so we won't lose navigation there either. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 16:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) per Dr. Greg. This is a very closely related idea and could easily be accommodated there. I'd go so far as to argue that a buffer shot is a particular case of a cutaway. WP:NOPAGE definitely applies here, and I think this merge target makes the most sense. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) per the comment by Mushy Yank. Buffer shots have a different goal and merging would lead to confusion. Glossary of motion picture terms is the better target as I already indicated above.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems like the three related articles here are Buffer shot, Cutaway (filmmaking), and Nod shot. A nod shot is a kind of buffer shot which is a kind of cutaway. For example, see the first paragraph of Cutaway:

"The most common use of cutaway shots in dramatic films is to adjust the pace of the main action, to conceal the deletion of some unwanted part of the main shot, or to allow the joining of parts of two versions of that shot. For example, a scene may be improved by cutting a few frames out of an actor's pause; a brief view of a listener can help conceal the break. Or the actor may fumble some of his lines in a group shot; rather than discarding a good version of the shot, the director may just have the actor repeat the lines for a new shot, and cut to that alternate view when necessary."

Which basically describes a buffer shot. Commenters above have argued cutaways are mostly not meant for this, but according to the article itself, they often are. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary definition is "a shot that interrupts the main action of a film or television program to take up a related subject or to depict action supposed to be going on at the same time as the main action" by Merriam Webster. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(as nom) Merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) given that the article content is already there, there just aren't any citations. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.@Mrfoogles, 35.139.154.158, Mushy Yank, Dr Greg A buffer shot is not a cutaway and a cutaway is not a buffer shot. They both use film splicing, but they are two different film editing ideas. I would support them being together in a larger article on film splicing, but not together under the name cutaway. Likewise nod shot could be included in the film splicing article.4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 can you clarify what the difference is? I and I assume most of the people here don't have a film editing background. Film splicing sounds the same as Cut (transition) on first glance but I'm going to assume those aren't necessarily the same. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DesiMoore So a "buffer shot" is sort of the "Correction fluid" of film making. It's a way to fix a mistake on camera through cutting out an unusable image on film and replacing it with a usable one without having to record new audio or film. The mistake could be anything from an actor tripping, to a boom mic being caught on film, to a person on the film crew accidentally being caught in a shot. Rather than reshoot a scene, they will do what's called a "buffer shot" by splicing in other footage from within that scene, such as another character's reaction (but not necessarily that). The point is, buffer shots don't change the scene in any meaningful way. There is no change in location, and the intent of the scene is not altered, and no new audio is recorded. Its sole purpose is to hide/remove visual errors caught on film through film splicing.

A Cut (transition) is different than a "buffer shot". A cut is specifically the footage used to link or transition from one scene into the next. This is usually done by film splicing in stock footage but can be done through other techniques such as fadeaways. It serves a completely different purpose/function than a buffer shot. These are planned transitions and are not a means of fixing accidental problems within a scene.

A Cutaway (filmmaking) is a purposeful shot designed from the beginning to cut from one space/location abruptly to another within a scene. It's intentional from the outset (its in the script). It could be done for humorous juxtaposition/irony for example. It could also be done for something as simple as a phone conversation between two characters where one sees one person talking on the phone in one location and then they cutaway to the another person talking on their phone in a different location. It is not used as a transition and is not used to cover up a mistake within a scene because it was planned from the beginning. Like the others, it does use film splicing.

A "nod shot" or "reaction shot" is a particular kind of stock footage shot that can be used in several ways. It's a standard within news media, and sometimes is done on sitcoms and other character dialogue centered shows. It could be used to cover up a mistake, it which case its acting as a "buffer shot". But it could also be used to finish up a scene which has audio but no accompanying image (happens more often in TV news) which would make it a "filler shot", or it could be used within a transition which would make it a cut. This type of footage probably wouldn't be used in a cutaway because cutaway footage tends to be very specific and requires a carefully planned shoot that most stock footage could not achieve. The point is, that all of these terms are defined by their purpose/goal. The only thing they have in common is the fact that they all use film splicing. Hope this helps clarify. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. Valuable information indeed! DesiMoore (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glossary of motion picture terms. Although the article is well-cited, it is clearly WP:DICDEF. Merging to the glossary will create the least confusion, since a buffer shot is neither a cutaway nor a nod shot.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between two different Merge target articles. Can we settle on the most appropriate one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glossary of motion picture terms, of the two suggested merge targets. Glossaries are under-utilized here on Wikipedia, and merging to a glossary rather than a related term seems preferable here. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalabam

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No reliable reviews from Rediff.com and Sify.com [12]. The only 2 reliable sources are passing mentions. DareshMohan (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. -Mushy Yank. 09:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2008, a standard solution for articles about released films when cast is notable, content verifiable and the director and writer have no page. Preserves history and can be reverted if sources are found. Thanks (NB- the film is listed there).-Mushy Yank. 10:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in Google search result to show that this passes WP:NFILM. The two sources in the article gave just single mentions each and with nothing in search result, there is nothing to sustain it. Mekomo (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2008, as quoted by Mushy Yank...Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sudheesh#2000s. Lots of evidence that the film exists. The other page List of Malayalam films of 2008 is poor with no sources and that is why redirect to actor's page is more better (imo). RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added some refernce links. I don't know whether the notability pass. The Film exists. Had a theater run. Streaming in multiple online platforms now. That is all. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus to Redirect but two different target articles bring proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There still has to be a decision between two suggested Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As discussed in many recent AfDs, infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about a current film in India often just verifies its existence, but does not constitute significant coverage. When this crossover into digital informational dreck occurred was in the 2020s, after this film was released. Bearian (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: source 3 and 4 are unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES and source 1 and 2 have no significant coverage and no multiple reviews. RangersRus (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is but not was true. Indian sources in the past were good. This film was released in 2008. Arguably the Indian media deprecated in the 2010s. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC) It’s the Sorites paradox: at which point in time did their media go from being normal to garbage? It’s an arbitrary point. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this video link via Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, about the deprecation of Indian journalism 9 to 10 years ago. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We still do not have a consensus on an outcome or the most appropriate Redirect target article if that is the option chosen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayanthkumar123: Are you ok with changing your Redirect to Sudheesh#2000s instead of List of Malayalam films of 2008 that is poor with no sources? RangersRus (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As there are no significant sources, I am ok with the redirect of the page to Sudheesh#2000s. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur Chauhan

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

Subject was twice declined in AfC and also fails NACTOR, as the subject has not had significant roles in notable films or shows. There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources apart from the WP:OR added by User:Saurang Vara who denies any COI despite being familiar with the subject's personal information. The subject's role in Chhello Divas does not appear to be significant and none of the other films have substantial content to be considered when evaluating Mayur Chauhan according to NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Gujarat. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say his 3 roles in productions that have a page on this WP are not significant? And why should Karsandas Pay & Use be considered non-notable? I found some coverage about Saiyar Mori Re too. He seems to meet WP:NACTOR, -Mushy Yank. 13:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned films do not meet WP:NFOE/ WP:NFILM. Karsandas Pay & Use has two reviews, one from TOI with an unknown critic and another from an unknown website. Saiyar Mori Re has no reception section and Samandar (film) has two local reviews! From a WP:BEFORE search, none of these films have been distributed outside Gujarat. Just because these films have articles on Wikipedia does not mean they are notable in the first place to be used as evaluation criteria for Mayur Chauhan. Either way, there is zero coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a critic writes for a national publication such as Times of India he is considered nationally known as per discussions at WP:NFILM Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discusisons on What is a "nationally-known critic"? and "Nationally-known critic" as it relates to films of India aren't closed and there is no consensus either. Let me know if I have missed any archived discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions are ended and there is a clear consensus Atlantic306 (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For argument's sake, even if the not-yet-closed discussion is considered as consensus for what you have claimed, there is still only one review in a national publication. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject has relatively moderate significant coverage for his films Saiyar Mori Re, Samandar (film), and Karsandas Pay and Use. As the lead actor in all these projects, the combined coverage is sufficient to pass WP:ACTOR.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the coverage though? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: i dont think the subject passes WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lead (ergo significant) roles in at least two notable productions have him meet WP:NACTOR imv. -Mushy Yank. 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject is likely to have worked in multiple movies but the lead role is uncertain and significant coverage in independent reliable sources is not available. Zuck28 (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry but the fact that she had at least 3 lead roleS is absolutely not "uncertain”. -Mushy Yank. 03:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this article would remove recognition of an individual who has played a role in the growth of regional cinema. Efforts should be made to improve the article with verifiable sources rather than deleting it. Regional actors often have a lasting impact that may not always be widely covered by mainstream media, but this should not disqualify their inclusion on Wikipedia. Saurang Vara (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Medha Sharma (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Trick mode (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)

Templates