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

Biyaheng Langit

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

This article has not had any sources for more than 15 years, this film is also not notable. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 4 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]

Night of the Zoopocalypse

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

Unreleased film that has been in development limbo and does not meet notability guidelines for unreleased films, which are only notable if production itself is notable. Review of the sources shows that they are not about the production itself, and that they are not independent, consisting of information from the producers.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	cartoonbrew.com	An article about the production company	Yes	No. Passing mention of film.	Yes?	Yes
2	www.animationmagazine.net	A sneak preview of the film	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	deadline.com	A press release about the film	No	Yes	Yes	No
4	variety.com	Combination advance preview and interviews	No	Yes	Yes	No
5	www.instagram.com	An Instagram by the composer	No	Yes	No	No
6	www.animationmagazine.net	A description of the teaser	No	Yes	Yes	No

This article was declined three times in draft space and then moved to article space. It should be moved back to draft space.

Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Canada. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – While I would argue the Variety interview, though technically a primary source, should count towards notability, it's not enough on its own and the remaining coverage is trivial. It is reasonable to expect more coverage upon its release. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Master Chief: Subic Bay

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

Film has a single source and upon quick search on Google there is no quality citations yet. The film has unknown filming status. See WP:NFF. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must have missed the trailer for the film upon your Google search.... Moviebuffguy408 (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The article is too soon, and more sources will likely become available upon the film's release. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Same as CanonNi, the article is too soon, but more sources may become available in the future. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for now as this is still an upcoming film --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify this unreleased film. Bearian (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving image formats

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

Contested PROD. My original rationale was: This is an essay based on original research, and cannot be rewritten into an an encyclopedic article. If someone wants to write an encyclopedic article on "Moving image formats" (which would be a WP:BCA, not a personal essay reflecting on the topic), this should be deleted and a new article written. There is nothing in the page history of this uncited personal reflection on moving image formats that is worth saving. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Technology. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, lacks context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'd say keep a stub, but given this would be a broad-concept article it would probably not be helpful that way. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Safari

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

~~Non-notable film. Unreferenced.~~ Withdrawn. Multiple reliable sources with significant coverage have been found, thereby making the subject notable. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 17:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 17:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely explains anything, no references as per nom Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 18:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Faust, M. (1998). Grant, Edmond; Fox, Ken; Joseph, Andrew (eds.). The Motion Picture Guide. New York: CineBooks. p. 187. ISBN 0-933997-00-0. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "The true star of Hollywood Safari is Muddy the dog, who saves the Johnson boys from innumerable scrapes but manages to avoid preposterousness. Muddy aside, Hollywood Safari can be recommended for a family evening chiefly on the basis of its pacing; it doesn't stay stuck in any one place for too long, even when it should. The screenplay keeps plunging forward without looking back to see where it has been, leaving too many loose ends. Much of the dialogue is also clumsy, as characters argue simply because the plot requires that they be in conflict, even though they fail to address what would seem to be the relevant issues. But young viewers will be no more bothered by these flaws than they will by the minor part taken by martial arts star Don "The Dragon" Wilson. (Wilson proves to be quite flat with the few lines of dialogue he has.) What may upset some tots is an early scene of a boy being attacked by a cougar; adults will spot the obvious fakery, but the length to which it is dwelled upon is excessive. (Violence.)"
2. Connors, Martin; Craddock, Jim, eds. (2000) [1991]. Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever. Detroit: Visible Ink Press. p. 428. ISBN 1-57859-042-6. ISSN 1095-371X. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "Hollywood Safari 🦴🦴1⁄2 1996 (PG). Jane (Boone) and Troy (Leisure) Johnson train animals for the movies. But Kensho the mountain lion escapes into the woods after a transport accident and is eventually captured by the police who think it's the wild cat that recently attacked a local teen. The Johnsons try to prevent the sheriff's deputy (Savage) from having Kensho killed before they can prove their claims, but their best defense would be to find the renegade cougar. It's a pleasant enough time-waster, with Muddy, the Johnson's dog, providing some fine heroics. 89m/C VHS. John Savage, Ted Jan Roberts, David Leisure, Debbie Boone, Ken Tigar, Don "The Dragon" Wilson; D: Henri Charr; W: Robert Newcastle; C: Guido Verweyen."
3. Martin, Mick; Porter, Marsha (2006). DVD & Video Guide 2007 (12 ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. p. 514. ISBN 0-345-49332-X. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Hollywood Safari ★★1/2 A family of animal trainers tries to find their escaped mountain lion before it is killed by a trigger-happy deputy eager to substitute it for a lion that has been attacking local tourists. Adventure aimed at kids, who may not mind the jumpy plot and cheapo special effects. Rated PG for mild violence. 89m. DIR: Henri Charr. Cast: Ted Jan Roberts, Ryan J. O'Neill, David Leisure, Don "The Dragon" Wilson, Debby Boone. 1997 DVD"
4. Myers, Randy (1997-08-08). "Get a kick out of pair's martial-arts movies". The News-Press. Knight-Ridder News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-12-03. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: ""Hollywood Safari": Better title would have been "They're Framing the Wrong Cat." A hotheaded deputy pursues a tame mountain lion thinking he's the one terrorizing the locals. To save the good beast, T.J. and his family of Hollywood animal trainers must contend with a trigger-happy lawman (John Savage). T.J. is good as one of the brothers intent on restoring a sense of justice to the animal kingdom by clearing the big cat's name. But the real star is the family dog, Muddy. He shows spunk, spirit and ingenuity that the lumbering big cat lacks. Get this dog a series. Good family fun, with some genuine suspense and laughs. (PG: Some mountain lion violence.) Grade: B."
5. Desjardins, Doug (1997-05-18). "PM Launches Video Label for Family Movies Has formed the Sun Valley Home Video label for family-oriented films". Video Store. ISSN 0195-1750. Factiva vdeo000020011009dt5i0004q.
  The article notes: "In an ongoing effort to diversify its image, PM Entertainment Group will launch a new label in August dedicated to family-oriented films.PM will introduce the Sun Valley Home Video label with the Aug. 5 release of Hollywood Safari, starring John Savage, Debby Boone and David Leisure. The film prebooks July 18 and carries a suggested retail price of $59.95.Hollywood Safari, about a pet mountain lion that escapes from its trainers, is a departure from PM's usual emphasis on action-adventure. ... Hollywood Safari follows the adventures of animal trainers Jane and Troy Johnson. When their prize pet mountain lion, Kensho, escapes, he is mistaken for a wild cat that recently attacked a young boy. Jane and Troy become involved in a desperate quest to protect their pet."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hollywood Safari to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you for finding sources for this article. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon (film)

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

Hard to search because of the common title but I see the Turkish article is also uncited Chidgk1 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince and Family

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

Non-notable upcoming film, see WP:NFF with no extensive coverage beyond generic press releases (that I can find, at least—with the caveat that I don't read Malayalam beyond my browser's translate function) with no indication that this passes WP:NFILM or the WP:GNG. As nominator, not opposed to a drafty, but not presently notable. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Aside from press releases, announcements, first-look posters, and a few trivial mentions, there are no sources that meets GNG at present. Additionally, there's no confirmed release date, with some sources speculating December 2024 or early 2025. Given that many of the crew members are well-known in the industry and the film marks the lead actor's 150th project (which is highlighted in almost every source), it's likely that significant coverage will emerge closer to the film's release.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Mims Mentor: This is more like a "rush to publish to the mainspace so everyone will see that it has an article" scenario. Intrisit (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Case of WP:TOOSOON. Better to wait till post production or release for significant coverage in reliable sources and with 2 or more critical reviews to generate. RangersRus (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Santa (2005 film)

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

In my WP:BEFORE I failed to find anything of substance, in reliable sources, to meet WP:NFILM. All I could find was run-of-the-mill database entries and newspaper TV listings. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United States of America. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: hardly anything for this version, most sources mention the Jack Black film of the same name. This is about all I could find [1] and it's hardly enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll take a look - offhand the article is a bit confusing, considering that they talk about it like it's a movie and a TV show. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Netural comment (for now) This seems to actually be an hour-long TV special rather than a film (note the Clay Aiken appearance likely tied into his Idol run at the time). Nate • (chatter) 17:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it's a reality show where celebrities give children stuff, from what I can see. So it's not a movie. I'm also uncertain if the "season 2" is actually a sequel or if it's an unrelated show with the same idea. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this was heavily tied into the Operation Santa Claus initiative, so we could probably do a selective merge into that article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Operation Santa Claus. There wasn't really much fanfare about this show. It was announced along with the CD, but no one really reported on it beyond announcements that it would air. There are no reviews and no info about how it fared in ratings, nor any info about the production process, all of which would be needed for it to pass the notability guidelines for TV shows. I've done some selective merging of the info into the main article for OSC since the children were chosen from the initiative and a related CD was sold at the USPS. As far as the 2006 version goes, I can't find any mention of this beyond air times and a handful of celebrity names. There's no confirmation that it was a sequel or even that it was related to OSC. The summary at IMDb mentions the USPS (but not OSC), but that's not a RS. It's most likely related, but I'm leery about adding it without at least some mention somewhere that would be seen as reliable on Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:32, 27 November 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 [2] lacks lip sync while the same dialogue from the original [3] 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]

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]

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]

The Altruist

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFILM. No wide release; page for Mick McCleery was successfully AfD'd in January 2019. Previously PROD'd by Another Believer but was dePROD'd on grounds of WP:NEXIST. Having done a search, I don't believe they do. Kazamzam (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found some local coverage, which is nice but not really the strongest possible source since local papers are more likely to cover local people. There's mention of it screening at a film festival in 2011 and winning an award, but it's not really a major film festival from what I can see so that's not really usable either. Finally, it looks like there are two critic reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, but I'm not sure how usable either really are. One of them doesn't seem to be running anymore, as when I click on the link on RT it takes me to a spam site. It's overall pretty weak sauce at best. This very technically meets notability guidelines by way of the film festivals and smattering of coverage, but in my opinion it also fails it pretty solidly at the same time. I would say that it would be good to identify what film festivals would qualify under NFILM, but that would be kind of hard to pin down. For example, one could argue that we only use notable film festivals - however that would exclude those screenings and mini-festivals held by very notable and major institutions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:38, 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!} 07:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bitman, Terry (2004-11-02). "Not 'The Twilight Zone,' but a S. Jersey thriller". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2024-12-03. Retrieved 2024-12-03.
  The article notes: "Here's the chilling plot: There are terminally ill people who would like someone to end their suffering, and there are people who like the thrill of killing. Why not match them up?The story may sound like something out of the old Twilight Zone, but in fact it is from a low-budget independent film called The Altruist, shot in Camden County.It is the latest production of writer-producer Mick McCleery, 34, a full-time teacher at the Gloucester County Institute of Technology, who has been writing screenplays since he was a child. The Altruist—which McCleery calls a "dark thriller"—is scheduled to premiere tomorrow at the Ritz Sixteen in Voorhees."
2. Shryock, Bob (2004-11-02). "Teacher premiers new independent feature film". Gloucester County Times. Archived from the original on 2024-12-03. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "County Institute of Technology (GCIT), will attend premiers of his new independent feature film, "The Altruist," twice in the next five days. That translates to two showings on two continents, from the Ritz 16 in Voorhees Wednesday to sold-out Clapham Picture House in London, England Sunday, 88 hours and 3,500 miles apart. ... The 104-minute film, which McCleery describes "a match-making service" for the country's 30,000 annual murders and 60,000 annual suicides, is a low-budget ($10,000 to $15,000) flick shot almost exclusively in South Jersey and largely in Deptford. Some cast members and technicians are Gloucester County products ..."
3. Longsdorf, Amy (2004-10-29). "Haddon Heights native's project makes it to big screen". Courier-Post. Archived from the original on 2024-12-03. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "From that notion sprung The Altruist, a drama about a Kevorkian Inc.-style business called Terminal Assist. For his cast, McCleery turned to actors he'd worked with before, including childhood pal and fellow Haddon Heights native John Innocenzo, Innocenzo's wife Bobbi Ashton, Mike McLaughlin, Nick Cammarano and a half-dozen of McCleery's fellow teachers from Gloucester County."
4. Ralph, Matthew (2004-11-11). "Friends' lives come together to create film" (pages 1 and 2). Gloucester County Times. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-12-03. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "When lifelong friends Mick McCleery and John Innocenzo spent a semester studying in London, neither dreamed they'd be returning to the city to premiere a film 14 years later. On Sunday, McCleery, 35, of Haddon Heights, who teaches full-time video production at Glouceste County Institute of Technology, and Innocenzo, who appeared in McCleery's first film in grade school, revisited the city they both spent a semester of college in to premiere McCleery's low-budget feature length film "The Altruist." While it was filmed exclusively in Gloucester and Camden counties, its star Billy Franks lives in London and arranged the screenin at the brick Clapham Picture House on a narrow side street in the southwest London village of Clapham."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Altruist to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Last One (film)

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

WP:TOOEARLY. Draftify. This article looks like a PR work for Lokesh Kumar if anything. No indication that the film started filming or is going to release anytime soon. The director's page mentions that this film is in preproduction. DareshMohan (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lokesh_Kumar#Filmography: until more is known. -Mushy Yank. 13:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 13:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanvaas

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

Upcoming film with no independent or secondary sources. Draftified to allow for more development but immediately restored to mainspace. All the sources are sponsored content or press releases. bonadea contributions talk 07:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. bonadea contributions talk 07:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: release in a month, notable cast and director; coverage exists: it is not independent but includes verification of cast,, plot, director's ideas in interviews (https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/bollywood/nana-patekar-utkarsh-sharma-journey-gets-renamed-to-vanvaas-exclusive-article-111905151 https://www.aninews.in/news/entertainment/bollywood/this-topic-touches-600-crore-people-director-anil-sharma-on-his-new-project-vanvaas-with-nana-patekar20241019232620/) etc, so that redirecting or draftifying for a month does not seem completely necessary (Deletion would be disruptive and I am absolutely opposed to that outcome.) but if other users disagree with a plain keep, then redraftify. -Mushy Yank. 13:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 13:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, both sources are in the article (more than once I think — there's a lot of duplicate sources in there, and a lot of disruptive refbombing with more and more copies of the same crap advertorials) and they are worse than useless. Unless there are independent sources there shouldn't be an article. --bonadea contributions talk 16:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is many news references for verification. And also film cast and director/producer is also notable.--PQR01 (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I am not too much into this but while I do think that Indeed the page has not been created properly, I believe it can significantly be improved as there is not much time left in the release of this movie. I believe the page should be draftified once again, the author has already been blocked indefinitely and now I believe the other editors will be able to improve the draft and add independent, reliable sources to establish notability and submit it for AfC once it's ready. -- AstuteFlicker (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AstuteFlicker:, just to clarify, are you voting to keep or draftify?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry :).. That is the reason why I said I am not too much into this. I meant to Draftify this article again... AstuteFlicker (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Just because it is about to be released is no reason to keep a page that does not meet notability guidelines. Draftify until the release and there are reviews, unless it can be shown there is something notable about the production. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The film has garnered SigCov in sources such as Times of India, India Today, and DNA India. These outlets have extensively reported on the film's promotional activities, cast, and production details and so passes WP:NFF. Also, with ongoing media attention, it is likely to gain further SigCov, reinforcing its notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those references as well, but which ones are considered reliable? I am specifically asking about the reference, not the publication as these are non-bylined sources falling under churnalism or WP:NEWSORGINDIA.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend seeking out current sources, as there are enough secondary coverages available. As I mentioned earlier, with the movie set to release in less than a month, media attention around its post-production and details is increasing daily, particularly given that many of the cast and crew members are well-known figures in the industry. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sought out current sources. You I cannot find them. You have failed to provide them upon me asking for them. The fact it releases in less than a month is not a reason to keep something that does not have the significant coverage to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with draftify as second choice. My first impulse was that a film not yet released is usually not notable, but a cursory look at the sources has changed my mind. I will defer to anyone who has read them in depth. I did not. Will note that notability may change. An upcoming film may be cease to be notable if it later flops or proves unimportant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Netflix exclusive international distribution programming

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

By their own admission, the pages here do NOT list Netflix programming, merely content that it has a licence for in specific territories. In the same way that we would not list programming created by, say, Disney on a list of programming on an international channel that it has exclusive rights for in that territory, say BBC, we should not be listing it here. WP:NOTDIRECTORY; WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --wooden superman 14:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. --wooden superman 14:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

--wooden superman 14:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPLITLIST applies and WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."; clearly the case here. (and I'm sorry but the scope, range and detail of Netflix's distribution has been the subject of coverage as a set, making the list notable anyway.... Start with World Cinema On Demand: Global Film Cultures in the Era of Online Distribution. (2022) Bloomsbury Publishing, p. 200; and Baker, D., Balanzategui, J., Sandars, D. (2023). Netflix, Dark Fantastic Genres and Intergenerational Viewing: Family Watch Together TV. Taylor & Francis (passim).., -Mushy Yank. 19:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is plainly a WP:NOTDIR violation and much better handled with categories rather than a page the average reader is never going to get near, or if they do, fail to understand what the list describes outside 'things on Netflix' as the introduction is badly explained and obtuse. Nate • (chatter) 19:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that categories are also inappropriate as it is not WP:DEFINING for content that Netflix does not produce itself. --wooden superman 20:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Mushy Yank. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 22:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mushy Yank.4meter4 (talk) 02:34, 4 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 [4]. 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]

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]

List of cinemas in Estonia

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

Poorly sourced and fails WP:NLIST. The Estonian language version of this article has more entries but also poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and Estonia. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only three entries and one notable entry is not a list. Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajf773@LibStar: has good potential to grow per e.g. etwiki list. Some references and info are also added Estopedist1 (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. 46 blue links (ie 46 potential entries...) on the Estonian page, that is an indication that should be noted and that is at least promising. And there is also a list dedicated to those of Tallinn only (in Estonian). Mushy Yank (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:NOTDIR and is only manageable because of the country's relatively small size. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with LibStar and Mangoe, fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR. If it had more links and sources, then it might be passable, but it is not acceptable under it's current condition.

Aknip (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Poorly sourced, yes: cleanup issue. Fails NLIST? no, meets NLIST as the topic as a set has received coverage. (Thomson, C. (2007). Estonia - Culture Smart! The Essential Guide to Customs & Culture. Kuperard. for example or Noble, J., Williams, N., Gauldie, R. (1997). Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania(Keeling): Lonely Planet, p. 147, for a start) At least a redirect and merge to Cinema of Estonia seems warranted to preserve history. The topic would seem to be perfectly encyclopaedic, though.... Mushy Yank (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and how precisely and exactly is that list supposed to fall under NOTDIR? Mushy Yank (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears that the list topic has been discussed as a set in RS. That is all we need to prove WP:NLIST. Further, I don't think this list falls under any of the six criteria of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and those saying it does haven't actually discussed or connected the list to any one of the six standards for making that judgement. It's not a convincing argument as the list has a clearly defined scope that is relevant to the Cinema of Estonia. It's not a simple listing because of the RS coverage, and given that Estonian language films get played pretty much only in theaters in Estonia and the small geographic area its reasonable to list theaters in a single page for topical reasons. It's therefore not a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" or a "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization", or a "A resource for conducting business", or a "Genealogical entry", or an "Electronic program guides".4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too small for a whole article. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Cinema of Estonia until it is expanded. The references added to the article show it passes WP:NLIST in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NLIST. Could use with some expansion though. ExRat (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cinema of Estonia: The sources provided to "pass WP:NLIST" in my eyes are far from that, and are in fact WP:ROUTINE. Noble, J., Williams, N., Gauldie, R. (1997). Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania (Keeling): Lonely Planet, p. 147 is a paragraph giving phone numbers, email addresses and addresses of some cinemas, with no meaningful analysis or commentary on the set (7 words!) or even claim of exhaustivity. I don't have access to the other source identified, but the same author three years prior wrote a guide book for Tallinn (note the later book was for Estonia as a whole) Thomson, C. (2004). Tallinn (Footprint), p.177 which is similarly not discussing cinemas in Estonia as a set (or in Tallinn). There is a very brief recap of cinema in Estonia, then a paragraph explicitly claiming to only list the main 3 locations and one arthouse cinema, with a fair share of the paragraph being used for the cinemas' names, address, phone number and location on the map provided with the book. If the content in her later book is significantly different, I feel the onus is on the people claiming it meets NLIST to explain how so at this point.
Other "List of X in (Country)" articles have been kept when they are useful to help with navigating pages which pass GNG on their own (e.g., List of golf courses in Canada) but generally only when they need to be separated from the main topic due to length. Cinema of Estonia is not at that point, and having a short list at some point in the article of notable cinemas would be relevant (I see that the article is already illustrated by a photo of an Estonian cinema!). Shazback (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:05, 2 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