Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.


Purge page cache watch
Scan for Film AfDs

Scan for Film Prods
Scan for Film template TfDs

Related deletion sorting


Film

[edit]

Dujon Dujonar

[edit]
Dujon Dujonar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM, without reviews in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG as well, coverage is limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and tabloid coverage disallowed per WP:SBST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Tell (upcoming film)

[edit]
William Tell (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking significant coverage per WP:NFF, draftify until the film receives WP:SIGCOV BOVINEBOY2008 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankush Hazra filmography

[edit]
Ankush Hazra filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A mostly unsourced and WP:PROMO WP:CONTENTFORK of Ankush_Hazra#Filmography that is entirely unnecessary due to the reasonable length of the actor's main bio article. A PROD was contested and a redirect was removed; I would be content with either delete or the restoration of a stable redirect to Ankush_Hazra#Filmography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The U P Files

[edit]
The U P Files (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 02:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajob Premer Golpo

[edit]
Ajob Premer Golpo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are unreliable. I cannot find anything better to replace in a WP:BEFORE. There are only two pages of hits on GNews and nothing that is reliable from what I see. CNMall41 (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nunakkuzhi

[edit]
Nunakkuzhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:FILM and WP:GNG. Declined three times at AfC before creator moved to mainspace. Then disputed draftification. Sources are unreliable and fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The TOI sources used here are not reliable for notability based on recent RSN discussion. CNMall41 (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not based on release date. Are there sources that show notability that are considered reliable?--CNMall41 (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wait for 10 days. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the section of notability guidelines where it says to wait 10 days? Very confused as to your rationale. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator could have chosen to leave it incubated until sources came out. Chose not to which is why we are here. In the meantime, release date does not mean notability. There are films that have been released that do not qualify and have been deleted. So again, I am not sure how waiting leads to notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting does not lead to notability. But opening an AfD about a film with notable cast and director 10 days before announced release is a waste of time and implies unnecessary bureaucracy and discussions, in my opinion. In 9-10 days, reviews will be published. And 10 days=less than 1 relist. So, yes, please wait. And as I've explained I consider this is a waste of time, I will leave it at that. Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have an issue with me following the process. That is something for ANI. As stated, time does not mean notability. There are films that have been released that have "waited" 10 days (and more) and not been notable. You are assuming this will be notable. Maybe it will be which is why it should have been left in draftspace. But again, here we are. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir/Ma'am,
Thank you for your feedback regarding the Wikipedia article on [Nunakuzhi]. I appreciate your diligence in reviewing the content.
I understand your concern about the timing of the film’s release and the relevance of the article. However, I would like to clarify that the film is indeed genuine and is scheduled for release as planned. The article has been created based on verified information and reliable sources that confirm the film's legitimacy and its forthcoming release.
In accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines, articles about notable films are often written well in advance of their release, provided there is sufficient verifiable information available. The inclusion of such articles serves to inform the public and preserve historical and cultural records.
If you have specific concerns or require additional sources to verify the film’s status, please let me know. I am happy to provide any further information or make any necessary adjustments to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards.
Thank you for your understanding and for contributing to the quality of Wikipedia. Aditya.nagda (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify again, the editor move the page to mainspace without addressing the concern on why the page was declined. This is the user's first article. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was in draft. It was declined, then rejected, then creator moved to mainspace. I draftified it after that and user immediately returned it to mainspace without addressing the concern. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I guess your right Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the editor move the page to the mainspace without addressing the reason why the draft got rejected. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i would request you to please give go ahead for this film article into mainspace without any interruption and will keep updating the article with fresh press release and new song updates. Aditya.nagda (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page was rejected three times with reason "Submission is about a film not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". The creator of the page failed to address the rejection and moved the page from draft to mainspace twice. The creator should have left the page in draft space to make further improvements but will likely move it back without addressing the rejection as done before and that is my vote is to delete. RangersRus (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pushing a thoughtfully rejected draft to mainspace is not permissible, and efforts to endorse such behavior are ill-advised. @Mushy Yank: we are, in particular, not in the film promotion business. BD2412 T 18:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A very unnecessary personal comment. I stand by my !vote and will certainly not change my mind. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your !vote is an endorsement of an editor pushing a rejected draft to mainspace, rather blatantly for the purpose of getting out ahead of the specific date of a movie premiere. In other words, as advertising rather than documentation. While we do sometimes have articles for highly notable productions in advance of an opening, our purpose is to document things that have proven notable rather than things that we expect to become notable. BD2412 T 19:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inappropriately personal remark, again. Here’s an Afd about a film and I !voted regarding the film; my !vote is based on common sense. You disagree? Fine. But I was not aware one was not allowed to !vote keep. Who is going to dare !vote keep now that you’ve commented on my !vote in this manner...? Good job. As for me, again, I will certainly not change my mind, even if you add more comments of the same type. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that your "!vote is based on common sense" and not notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologies for moving draft to mainspace. This is my first article i made a mistake and ill improve in it. Kindly forgive for the mistake and vote to keep this article. Lots of hardwork has been put to made this page. Aditya.nagda (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the film process to publish article/page to pass on the people and not promoting. In India, all films have wikipedia page before release. Tomorrow trailer launch is happening and next week film is releasing. I would request to approve and keep the page. Aditya.nagda (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would request you to please close this debate and keep this article and dont nominate to delete as movie trailer is launching tomorrow and movie releasing next week. Aditya.nagda (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aditya.nagda: Your comments can easily lead one to believe that you have a vested interest in this film. You seem to have a lot of inside information on the release plans, and you say you will keep updating with press releases. This is also pretty much the only article you have edited (WP:SPA) outside a very few single move of another page to a typo and back. Are you involved in the production of the film somehow or have you been paid to create this article? A 'yes' answer is fine; however, you must disclose this information (typically on your user page or User talk page), and a neutral party should be reviewing to ensure the article is acceptable (that is one of the few cases where AfC is a requirement). Also, stating that in India, all films have wikipedia pages before release is not true. Some may get through, but they are not supposed to get through unless a notable production has been shown. If you see pages published before their release without notable production information, you are encouraged to nominate those for deletion as well. "Forgiving the mistake and keeping the article" can also be accomplished by sending it back to draft space and allowing a different editor to move it back at the appropriate time. -2pou (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes im part of the film production thats why i have all information about the film. Trailer is releasing today evening at 6.30pm and buzz is gonna be crazy after the trailer launch. This film is directed by well known malayalam director which is Mr.Jeethu Joseph. Aditya.nagda (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would !vote delete given the contentious move history; however, if User:Aditya.nagda is willing to refrain from another move, I would alternatively !vote to re-draftify. Because we do not promote, there is no rush, and no harm if the article is published the day after its release, for example. We can still "inform the public and preserve historical and cultural records after a review is published. -2pou (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also !vote to re-draftify. This article can be forced to enter the AfC process or User:Aditya.nagda can agree to not move the page or be restricted rights to. DareshMohan (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree, but I would be completely against it at this point UNLESS the mainspace name is protected to prevent user from doing what they shouldn't have done in the first place. If we can agree on that I would fully support it. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin could salt both Nunakkuzhi AND Nunakuzhi (looks like there might be some move shenanigans as well), and we could add an AfC comment that the AfC reviewer will have to request it be unprotected before acceptance. -2pou (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The director has said the actual translation of the film title has kk like Nunakkuzhi but the film has got known by people and trending on social media with single k so therefore it was some confusion but now its fixed with single k in the title which is NUNAKUZHI. Aditya.nagda (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where has the director said this? Do you know the director personally or can you provide the source with the statement they made?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are producers and we know him personally Aditya.nagda (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I request you to end this discussion and vote to keep this article and remove the article for deletion tag. Aditya.nagda (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which accounts are "we?" It is clear that you have a WP:COI based on the omission which was already prevalent prior. You will need to read WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure per that guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: Can't believe a producer wrote this (makes me not want to edit here when people here are part of the film). Feel free to delete it. DareshMohan (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DareshMohan:, I get it, but I won't let you leave. lol. You are one of the few people holding down the film industry in that region on Wikipedia who is not UPE. You do good work! --CNMall41 (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not paid contribution Aditya.nagda (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would request you all to end this discussion and keep this article. Shift to mainspace after review, trailer is out yesterday and it has got great response all over social media. Aditya.nagda (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I request You'll to make the decision as soon as possible. Aditya.nagda (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion will remain open until a full week since its opening has passed. A final decision won't be set until after 08:22 GMT, 5 August 2024. -2pou (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom and WP:NYF. UPE editors often create articles for films or TV series before they launch as part of their PR strategy. The only keep vote here states, will be released in 10 days... Notable cast, notable director which doesn’t make sense and clearly falls under WP:ATA. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Carole

[edit]
Christmas Carole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased (although premiered at a minor film festival) French film. Per WP:SNG WP:NFF, unreleased films are not notable unless their production is notable, which is not the case here John B123 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity per WP:TOOSOON and wait for the release to determine the notability Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ridiculous nomination for deletion. The film has been publicly released and the article is very well sourced with a variety of reliable sources, satisfying WP:TOOSOON AND WP:NFF handily. Numerous news articles from a variety of outlets have discussed the film's production and release, several of which are used as sources in the article. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRAFTIFY, not released, despite the preceding comment. Should be in draft until its actual release and reviews can be obtained. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NFILM does NOT say a film page needs 2 reviews. What you are pointing to is literally labeled "Other evidence of notability", as in "aside from the the means of establishing notability outlined above, these various means CAN also be used to establish notability, not MUST be used". Happy Evil Dude (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is tiring. It satisfies BOTH WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, as has been demonstrated to you numerous times by both myself and User:Mushy Yank. You quoting another editor that performed an abusive unjustified unilateral article deletion does not change that fact. The fact the 13 sources quoted in the article amount to one paywalled article is a blatant lie. Article contains references to Variety, Screen International and several Belgian national news sources, among others. The film has wrapped filming, has screened at several film festivals, has received significant coverage, the article contains numerous reliable secondary sources,... Enough. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: released, although not yet distributed in film theaters, very notable cast, has received coverage about production and will be reviewed when distributed for Christmas. All content is verifiable. But this is obviously notable, there is indeed no question of it. More available online. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging editors who have previously edited the article in an attempt to widen the discussion; @Bovineboy2008, Rosguill, Eopsid, and Rich Farmbrough: --John B123 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft - significant coverage is entirely absent from the citations, with the sole possible exception of the content behind the paywall in the rtbf.be article. I'm inclined to assume the best of the source, but even then we're nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. The keep arguments thus far are entirely unconvincing and appear to take press releases from film festivals and rote statements that a film is in production to be significant coverage; they aren't. We need to see analysis and commentary on the production decisions, and/or critical evaluation of the film. signed, Rosguill talk 02:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Services Public Relations media productions

[edit]
Inter-Services Public Relations media productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Mention insignificant work. WP:NOT DIRECTORY — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie

[edit]
Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking significant coverage per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 20:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is generally unwise to assume that a film that is still in production will be notable when/if it is publicly released. In particular, the WP:NFF guidelines state: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." This does not seem to be the case. It also states: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines..." I think it is clear that these criteria have not been met in this case. Of course the editors can retain a draft or the article could be draftified, but it is not suitable for main space. Lamona (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gabby's Dollhouse#Film as an WP:ATD. I think this is a fair compromise between Lamona and Mushy Yank. Overall, though, I have to agree with Lamona and the nomination that this doesn't really meet WP:NFF due to a lack of significant coverage. Stating that the film is live-action and animation and that the live action piece is in progress alone does not satisfy the NFF requirements. We have three references (expanded here to include publisher): Ref 1,[1] Ref 2,[2], and Ref 3.[3] Refs 1 and 3 offer significant coverage; however, they are not of the production, just the announcement of the project. They are also on the same date and from the same company, and the way they are structured, these are really reports based off the same industry announcement, both of which go against WP:INDEPENDENT (same company alone, they're probably OK given different editorial structures, but the nature of the "report" reduces the relevance.) Reference 2 does not WP:VERIFY the information that it claims, as the production is not actually listed. I checked the archives, and they do not help, either. (See archives on 10, 17, 21, and 23 July, respectively. I cannot get them to display, but perhaps someone else can?) The problem with this site is that it is formatted in a way that getting verifiable archives is next to impossible. Maybe archive.today would work, but it doesn't have any entries. Anyway, I still WP:AGF that the information was once there given the listed access date. The problem remains that even if it was there, it would not provide any WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage. Basing this off the current entries, it provided a simple fact verification of the start date, and did not provide any prose reporting on this production, failing the significant coverage piece needed to meet NFF. A list of facts is good to verify information, but not to establish notability. -2pou (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Filming already started and they have a release date, there's no reason to delete the page. KingArti (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McClintock, Pamela (25 April 2024). "Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie to Get the Big-Screen Treatment in 2025". The Hollywood Reporter. Penske Media Corporation.
  2. ^ "In Production - Creative BC". Creative BC. July 10, 2024. Retrieved July 10, 2024.
  3. ^ Anthony D'Alessandro (April 25, 2024). "DreamWorks Animation Dates Big Screen Version Of Netflix Streaming Series Gabby's Dollhouse For Fall 2025". Deadline Hollywood. Penske Media Corporation. Retrieved April 25, 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21st Asianet Film Awards

[edit]
21st Asianet Film Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of many WP:CFORKS for Asianet Film Awards created by now blocked/banned user. Sources I find in a WP:BEFORE are not significant enough to show notability for this segment of the award. The information is also covered in the main pace for Asianet Film Awards so this needs deleted or the information about individual winners on that main page needs removed. CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a list, it is an event. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If only you had opened the link to the guideline you might have had a chance to understand what it says. And, on top of this, your comment is completely absurd. The page uses table format and is about an event. It's not the event itself. But maybe you consider, for example, that BLP pages about actors are the actors themselves and not articles. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. This is about an event with a list of winners. It is not a list article. I am curious how you know if I opened any link or not or why you want to be uncivil. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you indeed open(ed) the link you probably (would have) realise(d) that WP:SPLITLIST does not deal only with "list articles"/"lists" and basically says the same thing as what you yourself say at the end of your rationale, from what I understand of it. You indeed explain that "information is also covered in the main (s)pace for Asianet Film Awards so this needs deleted" (if such is the case, it would seem better to redirect rather than delete, but, anyway), but according to WP:SPLITLIST, it would be even better if one could do as you suggest at the end of the same sentence and edit the page(s), as "the information about individual winners on that main page needs removed."
I don't "want to be uncivil" but, as your latest reply perfectly shows, by the way, your initial reply 1) wasn't actually commenting on anything I had referred to (so I assumed you didn't open the link, and one might even assume you still haven't) 2) offered a completely false and absurd dichotomy, on which I commented with a humorous similar dichotomy, obviously not seriously implying that you do really believe that actors are pages. I apologise if you thought I was saying this seriously and if indeed you have opened the page but did not see it was not dealing with lists only. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Just a note that your humor does not come across as humor. It comes across as advertorial which takes away from my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. But again, I understand now based on your explanation. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Categories

[edit]

Templates

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Film&oldid=1239559698"