Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Tasks

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainTalkAssessmentParticipantsShowcaseTasksResourcesTemplatesHelpPortal
WikiProject Animation
Information
Archives
1, 2, 3, Index
Threads older than 30 days may
be archived by MiszaBot II.
Departments
Project organization
Task forces
Related projects
Descendant projects
Animation Portal • Changes
Shortcuts

This is the a list of tasks that either need regular attention for WikiProject Animation.

To do list[edit]

Cleanup listing[edit]

A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

This is the list of Unreferenced BLPs automatically generated by DASHBot.

There are no unreferenced BLPs tagged by Template:WikiProject Animation.

Requested articles[edit]

Requested articles
Experimental animation
Films
The King's Beard, Timothy Tweedle the First Christmas Elf, The Return of the Prodigal Parrot [ru]
Television
Cyboars, Louie (animated show), Simsalagrimm, Brainphreak
People
Andrew Kepple, Chasen Kay, Vince Collins, Corin Hardy, Kondoh Akino
Studios
Studio CGI
edit


New articles[edit]

New articles by topic — New articles (Animation)

The following articles have been identified by InceptionBot as potentially being within the scope of the project, based on the Animation ruleset. It is likely that some of them are false positives; please examine the log if you have any questions.

This page lists recently created Animation-related articles. Remember to nominate the best new articles at Template talk:Did you know so Wikipedia can highlight them on the main page.

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2024-06-10 19:27 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.


Article alerts[edit]

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(14 more...)

Templates for discussion

  • 30 May 2024 – Template:Machinima episode (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Jonesey95 (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(8 more...)

Articles to be split

(6 more...)

Articles for creation

(6 more...)

Deletion discussions[edit]

To edit this section, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation

Cleveland Brown Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cleveland Brown Jr. (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)

Does not meet general notability guidelines. The little significant coverage mentioning this character is not about the character itself, rather focusing on the show at large. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Chingum[edit]

Inspector Chingum (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:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Added a few things. If judged insufficient, redirect to Motu Patlu#Recurring. Again, I am inviting the nominator to PLEASE slow down nominations of Indian animated series or to directly and boldly redirect them to obvious related articles if they think apparent notability issues need to be addressed urgently. THANK YOU. Taking a page to Afd with a minimal rationale may take some time but checking sources, improving the page, verifying potential targets, etc, also does. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters[edit]

S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters (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)

Work itself does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:N. Sourcing, aside from primary sources such as tweets and youtube discussions, are mainly interviews and discuss the author far more than the work itself. Artist is possibly notable, however this doesn't seem to quite meet the notability bar. Mdann52 (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing for this page is strong enough to keep, so for now I'm going to say weak keep. But, if it comes down to it, I'd be fine turning it into a redirect to Swampy Marsh, but... deleting this page outright would be a disservice to those who worked on the page, so a redirect would be my second choice. Historyday01 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect or draftify (in case anything further comes of this) is also a good outcome here, unfortunately I was struggling to find another article to redirect this to. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and further sourcing will emerge later on if work/release dates re-emerge. Mdann52 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree, that's why I stand by saying weak keep and redirect at the present time. I personally do NOT trust the draft process entirely (its too easy for a good article to be held up there, and the draft process is really for Wikipedia beginners to be perfectly honest) and would much rather it become a redirect rather than a draft, if that is the choice. Historyday01 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historyday01 you appear to be the primary author and maintainer of this article. In fact, perusing the history I don't see that anyone BUT you has contributed substantially to the article--everyone else appears to be cleaning/polishing your work. You don't mention this, nor that one of your added sources was previously removed as promotional. Rather, you refer to yourself obliquely in the third person those who worked on the page which also smacks of attempts to conceal your relationship to this article. To put it bluntly, your work on this article may well be that of an overenthusiastic hobbyist, but it also looks distinctly like COI or UPE. Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors? Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, you are correct that I am "the primary author and maintainer of this article", and surely I'm the main contributor, I won't deny. If one of my added sources was removed for being promotional, that's my error for not knowing it was promotional. I'm not referring to myself in the third person here, but I was trying to be inclusive of ALL the people who have contributed to this, including myself.
I'm no "overenthusiastic hobbyist" or anything like that, I just felt this subject should have an article. In response to your question ("Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors?"), no, I do NOT have any special relationship with the project, not at all. In fact, I have tried to keep up with what is going on with the project but there haven't been many updates. This is why I personally support a weak keep or redirect (second option).
I have attempted to improve the page over the years... It happens sometimes that a single person works on the page. I would LOVE if more people worked on the page, but sadly that has not happened. I made the page years ago when I had more time, but nowadays I don't have as much time to do Wikipedia edits. I could have surely done better with the page, but I suppose this AfD was inevitable to some degree, I just would like the text to be preserved in the event that this series DOES premiere, it can be brought back at that point. Historyday01 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historyday01 My point about draftifying was to save the article to an extent - I would expect it to be redirected and draftified (or at the very least, I would add a redirect in should it be deleted given we have a valid target identified). This isn't me trying to downplay the effort or work that has gone into it - unfortunately often AfD is the best way to gain a consensus for such things. I agree that the draft/AfC process is broken to an extent, but you don't have to use that process. Mdann52 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I have to agree. I've seen some AfDs go off the rails before and be totally worthless, including some calling for an article to be deleted and then doing nothing to help improve the article after the AfD ended, which is a bit depressing. The opinions of SOME people in this discussion (not you) is damaging my confidence to create future articles, as their comments are a bit harsh and pointed. Honestly, this article definitely needed to be examined again, so in that sense, this AfD is worthwhile, although I can't, in good conscience, support deletion of an article which I've been a been a big contributor in, because that would make me too sad.Historyday01 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional and NN. This Wikipedia article is serving as promotion for a "project" that started "development" in 2018. It's not there, it's not going to be there, and the refbombing with press releases, interviews in NN niche publications, and tweets reeks of G11. I note nothing since 2022 in the article. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not a promotion for the project and the fact you would say that (and wrongly accuse me of having some sort of connection to those who created this series) is deeply unfortunate, especially coming from someone who boasts about saving articles on your user page. I guess this article doesn't matter to you. Simply put, if you really wanted to improve it, then why haven't you done any edits on it? I mean, you could have done something to improve it since it was created. I detest nothing more than editors who don't put in the work to improve articles (it seems you have in other articles, but unless I missed something, I don't see any edits from you on this article). As I've said in many AfD discussions, deletion is not a solution for cleanup of articles. I'm guessing NN means "non-notable" which I have to dispute. As I said above, I support a "weak keep" or "redirect" at this present time, and I will NOT be changing that view. If it really comes down to it, I would support this becoming either a redirect and/or a sentence or two about it at Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show (there's two good sources which show his involvement). If so, the mention of the series on Swampy Marsh's page could be:

"In 2019, Marsh was described as the executive producer and voice director of S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters, with his company, Surfer Jack Productions, producing the series.[1][2] The series is created by a queer woman named Samantha "Sam" Sawyer, based on her unpublished comic of the same name.[3][4]

It could be of interest to those who follow Marsh to mention this. If this text was added, then the article could be changed to a redirect, and then that redirect link could be changed to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show. I've seen some other articles which have done this, so it wouldn't be completely out of the question. I had been roughly planning to add the series to the List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present for a while, but ended up removing it, and mentioning it here. Anyway, your comment could be worded in a much less harsh way. If I was a new editor and I had gotten a comment like that, I would be discouraged from creating ANY new articles. Luckily, I'm not one of those people, but the tone of your comment needs to be MUCH better and more constructive, than trying to (as it looks to me) tear people down.Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asserting that you have no financial or other interest in keeping this article or promoting this potential series. I accept your statement, but note that the binary alternative, that you are an overenthusiastic hobbyist, isn't a bad thing in comparison. We're all allowed to have the things that we see more value in than other people do.
As such, no one is asking you to change your !vote. That'd be a bit totalitarian at best: You're entitled to want something saved that isn't ready for Wikipedia, as I maintain that this is not.
Having said that, I'd encourage you to not take this too personally. I know that's hard to do when someone is calling your "baby" ugly... but sometimes a baby is just ugly. In this case, you appear to have put together the best article reasonably possible on this not-media, but it's just not sufficient. Really, you have interviews and coverage of the people involved, but nothing that states this would come close to meeting WP:NFF or similar guideline. Go read up on that, and understand that if we had articles on every single project that's been stuck in development hell, we'd be awash in them. There's nothing to draftify, because there is no evidence it is going anywhere in the foreseeable future. I'm sorry, but that's reality as best I can see it. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider myself some "overenthusiastic hobbyist" as that term seems to be a negative, and its not one I accept, not in the slightest. It's like saying I'm a "history buff". I'm not, and I hate that term, as much as I detest the word "hobbyist." It has a bad connotation and its not one I would ever associate with. I'm not some person who plays around with drones or builds model trains in my basement, I'm someone who cares about certain subjects on here (and in real-life), and that's okay! I continue to disagree with you on this, while I appreciate that you are saying that I "appear to have put together the best article reasonably possible on this not-media" and to not even support a redirect just doesn't sit well with me. As a fair warning, if this series does get up and running again (which is altogether possible), I'm not going to be gung ho to make it a page if this is deleted. I'm going to say it isn't worth my time, believing that "oh, someone will just nominate this for an AfD again, so what's the point." I just don't want it to come to that. I still believe this article has value, and I will continue to believe that, regardless of your arguments to the contrary. I recently posted about this on the four projects on the present article's talk page, hoping to get some more eyes on this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing against characterizing yourself as an overenthusiastic hobbyist, but participating extensively here and stating if things don't go your way you're going to reconsider your editing. Whatever you choose to call that, that behavior precisely what I mean when I say "overenthusiastic hobbyist". Regardless, you're not convincing most participants here. I'd suggest proactively look at WP:THREE and follow that advice. Despite your perception of me, I would like nothing better than to be convinced I was wrong... but having looked through several of the sources, I'm not going to look at arbitrarily more marginal sources. So, build the case for notability and win me over. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does appear PROMO. Article is solely sourced to tweets, podcasts and non-RS. I don't find anything about this "upcoming" webseries that's been coming since 2018. If nothing has been written about it by now, I'm sure what notability we have left to find. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said elsewhere in this discussion, this article is not promotional and it is incorrect to say it is so. The fact it is not as well sourced as it could have been is my fault. I wish someone (literally anyone) had brought these issues to my attention a year or so ago, as I would have done something about it, as the article's main contributor, rather than getting these comments in an AfD, which is the worst nightmare for an article creator. The fact that this AfD is happening at all is a failure of the Wikipedia system, as it could have been avoided with a discussion on the article's talk page. I would have been happy to discuss it there, but having an article in an AfD is very nerve-wracking and stressful. The article shouldn't be deleted outright, but should be changed, at minimum, to a redirect, or possibly, a weak keep. It is unfortunate that you support a deletion rather than a redirect, and I would hope that you change your view on that. Some series have BAD promotion, so that should be kept in mind. Otherwise, your comment is very harsh and should be much better worded, as the tone is VERY negative. If I was a new editor and I got this, I would not want to make any new articles ever again. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Promotional can be as simple as being listed higher up in search results; having an article here does help with Search engine optimization. This is not meant to be "mean" as I've discussed the facts here and please do not take it as such. You are certainly entitled to your !vote above, but I've reviewed what we have and don't feel either a redirect or a week keep would help in this case. If you are the article creator, please understand that you do not "own" the article, it's part of the wiki community and we all have a part to play in building a better encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument that this is promotional is not convincing in the slightest. I understand that I don't "own" the article, but saying it should be deleted is wrong. I just can't agree with that. I maintain that if it comes to it, a redirect would be the best. To wipe this article off Wikipedia together would be not only be unfortunate, but indicate Wikipedia's bias against LGBTQ+ articles, which leeches into discussions such as this one.Historyday01 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All sourcing fails WP:SIRS, so article fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree. Wouldn't a redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh's page (the specific section is mentioned above) be a good compromise here? If it DOES pick up again and there ARE more sources, it can be brought back, but I think there's enough to justify the two sentences (which I purposed above) to at least mention it there. I did find some other sources about it in The Advocate, V13, Reel Librarians (cited as an external link on Librarians in popular culture and on some other pages on here), and The Corsair as well. Historyday01 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Advocate (definitely an RS) is paywalled--not a disqualifier, but can you summarize that? V13 is another interview from 2020, and Reel Librarians is a bare mention from 2021. Nothing I've seen says this is anything other than an aspirational project stuck in development hell. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh as an alternate to deletion since there’s a reasonable chance that if it releases the content may be revived, but for now it just might be WP:TOOSOON. Raladic (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archi & Meidy[edit]

Archi & Meidy (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)

Did not find any sources behind this series to establish notability. GamerPro64 02:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Yohanes Surya. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golmaal Jr.[edit]

Golmaal Jr. (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:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Golmaal Jr has enough sources for it to be an article, the series seems popular in general. TheNuggeteer (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Grayskull[edit]

King Grayskull (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)

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Cat[edit]

Battle Cat (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)

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockoons[edit]

Rockoons (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:GNG; all coverage both in article and in BEFORE search provides only WP:TRIVIALMENTION. WP:TVSERIES does not apply in the absence of reliable sourcing about its production. As an alternative to deletion, I propose to redirect to Soyuzmultfilm. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see how this fails notability. There are sources in the article. I must also add that the addition of the deletion tag seems premature as it was added only 9 minutes after the addition of those calling for the improvement of the article. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added them as part of new page review, which was when I did source analysis and decided they did not meet WP:GNG. Did you look at the (two) sources? They each have a single passing mention of the show, nothing close to WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that the sources should only write about the show? At least they say something like the show is one of the selected ones in the country aimed for more international exposure. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg of you to read the WP:SIGCOV page. It's very clear about the kind of coverage required. Brief passing mentions don't count. The sources you cited are fine to include in the article to validate facts, but they don't do anything to establish the notability of the subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chacha Bhatija (TV series)[edit]

Chacha Bhatija (TV series) (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)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gattu Battu[edit]

Gattu Battu (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:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3D animation software[edit]

List of 3D animation software (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)

Notability/usefulness not demonstrated. Just a list of licenses of softwares. Greatder (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Software, and Lists. Greatder (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This list fails WP:NLIST as we cannot say that the list deserves to exist per the article's first sentence, "this is a list of 3D animation apps that have articles on Wikipedia". Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you link something that literally contradicts what you said? Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid navigational list. More useful than a category since more information is shown. It is useful if you want to see a list of all the software of this type, and be able to sort it by its type of license to find what you are looking for. Additional information could be added, a column showing what year it became available, another column listing if its still being developed and if not just list when the last update was, etc. Dream Focus 16:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The mere fact that all of these have a Wikipedia page makes it a valid list under WP:LISTPURP. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra: Boom Chik Chik Boom[edit]

Rudra: Boom Chik Chik Boom (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:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva (TV series)[edit]

Shiva (TV series) (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)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Raju[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mighty Raju (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:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Animaker[edit]

Animaker (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)

I'm doubting that the software is notable based on the sources cited. -- Beland (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slowpoke Rodriguez[edit]

Slowpoke Rodriguez (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:GNG with the article's main source being primarily about Speedy Gonzales. List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters is partially incomplete and putting the info there would help to fill out that article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoOzy' OS and the Cristal Gem[edit]

BoOzy' OS and the Cristal Gem (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)

This appears to fail WP:NFILM. This was a short film which was submitted to a 2013 Dailymotion contest connected with Annecy ("+ de courts"), but which did not win the judging ([1]). I can't find any mention of it in the archived Annecy web site, nor can I find any substantial coverage online, just a lot of entries in film databases and an unusual amount of media on Commons (for now, at least: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by REDƎYE). Omphalographer (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can't find any substantial coverage in secondary sources outside of a blog or two. Nowhere good to redirect to, it isn't mentioned in Annecy International Animation Film Festival and there's no article for the director. Odd that a French film has articles in 30 languages but not French. hinnk (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it was in French Wikipedia but they deleted it years ago as non-notable. hinnk (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find many secondary sources on Google : a critic review in Romania, another in London (2023), an interview in Paris (2014), another in India (2023), etc. IMDB shows 1700 votes, 8 awards and 1 nomination. This seems to me to be very ample in terms of notoriety for a short film ^^ (note : I remember the AFD in FR in 2014 : at that time, there was not enough sources (only 1 interview I think) but with today awards and coverage, I think the article should be recreated in FR) --Supersonic888 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not 8 but 10 wins, and not 1 but 4 nominations ^^ I just added "Critical response" and "accolades" sections with sources on the article. --Supersonic888 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are primary sources that don't help meet the general notability guideline, those two reviews are both from sites that accept payment for reviews ([2][3][4]), and the World Film Carnival Singapore site you added to the article was running malware that immediately redirected me without even showing a review. Do you understand my concern when someone says a subject is very ample in terms of notoriety, with this as the evidence? hinnk (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm admittedly not an expert on the film industry, but most of those awards appear to be from monthly online competitions, not notable film festivals. For example, the "Rome International Movie Awards" is a blog which issues dozens of awards to amateur films every month. Omphalographer (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an expert on the film industry either but it seems they paid for participating in festivals, not for reviews or awards. I didn't have any problem for visiting the World Film Carnival site (no malware for me) ^^
    The fact that it is an amateur film (if it is one? I don't know) does not seem to me to be a criterion for deletion: we are talking about notoriety and I believe that this point is respected, internationally (I add that on Commons there are photos showing the director with trophies at these festivals in Asia, which also shows international distribution).
    If we look at Category:2013 animated short films and IMDB (when available):
    • Aruvu Rezuru: Kikaijikake no Yōseitachi = 23 votes
    • Backward Run = 77 votes, 1 win & 3 nominations
    • The Blue Umbrella (2013 film) = 11000 votes, 1 nomination, 17 critics (Pixar)
    • A Boy and His Atom = 454 votes, 1 critic
    • The Chaperone 3D = 90 votes, 7 wins & 4 nominations, 1 critic
    • Death Billiards = 2100 votes, 2 critics
    • The End of Pinky = 51 votes, 2 nominations, 3 critics
    • Game Over (2013 film) = 0 vote
    • Get a Horse! = 5600 votes, 2 wins & 2 nominations, 20 critics (Mickey)
    • Gloria Victoria = 137 votes, 1 win & 7 nominations, 5 critics
    • Hollow Land = 58 votes, 8 wins & 3 nominations, 1 critic
    • Impromptu (2013 film) = 28 votes, 1 nomination, 1 critic
    • Kick-Heart = 1000 votes, 1 wins & 3 nominations, 9 critics
    • Mary & Myself = 16 votes, 1 nomination
    • The Missing Scarf = 468 votes, 15 wins & 5 nominations, 4 critics
    • Missing U (film) = 26 votes
    • Mr Hublot = 5200 votes, 6 wins & 2 nominations, 14 critics
    • Party Central = 3700 votes (Disney Pixar)
    • The River's Lazy Flow = 11 votes, 1 win & 1 nomination
    • The Scarecrow (2013 film) = 248 votes, 5 wins
    • The Smurfs: The Legend of Smurfy Hollow = 986 votes, 1 nomination, 13 critics (The Smurfs)
    • Subconscious Password = 198 votes, 3 wins & 5 nominations, 4 critics
    • Toy Story of Terror! = 18000 votes, 6 wins & 10 nominations, 31 critics (Disney Pixar)
    This is to show that with 1700 votes it has more votes than most other films, even more than The Smurfs. Only 6 blockbuster films have more votes (Disney Pixar, Mickey, etc).
    To me, all this is significant in terms of notoriety even though one could still argue that some votes could be rigged. Supersonic888 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User votes on IMDb are not in any way, shape, or form a measure of notability (nor "notoriety"). Omphalographer (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and that's not what I'm basing it on here (I just point this out, in addition to my remarks), but it's an interesting indicator ^^ Supersonic888 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources are fine with me and the notoriety seems sufficient to me, with good worldwide coverage. However, some festivals mentioned are a bit light (Morocco Fest and Oregon Film Festival: there is only one primary source). The article seems acceptable to me on Wikipedia in French as well --CineDany (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Convinced by the arguments, sources ok for me. The only point that would make me hesitate would be the film’s absence from major review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. --SuperKFuu (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not impressed by the quality of the sources; this seems to fail the notability guidelines. There's a concerted effort by the creators to prop up the work across Wikimedia projects but the coverage just isn't there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have several less experienced editors participating here and I urge them to review Wikipedia:Notability (films) which is Wikipedia's guideline on how to judge notability regarding films and it doesn't include consideration by IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes. The nominator pointed out this page but I don't think some editors here are familiar with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Based on the references that have been added, I put together a quick source assessment to evaluate where we are now. It seems to me like WP:GNG has still not been reached. hinnk (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:hinnk
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
IMDb Yes No WP:IMDB ? ✘ No
C2S Network No Press kit No Yes ✘ No
Dailymotion contest Yes ? No Just the title listed as a contest winner, although "More infos" section lists a different winner ✘ No
AllMovie Yes ~ WP:ALLMUSIC, AllMovie ratings seem unreliable since they're included even on upcoming/lost films No Mostly facts imported from Wikidata, otherwise just the numerical rating ✘ No
World Film Carnival Singapore ? ? ? Dead link, failed verification, Internet Archive page is also empty ? Unknown
Monkey Bread Tree ~ No Offers coverage as a paid service Yes ✘ No
fiffest ~ No Offers coverage as a paid service Yes ✘ No
Paris à contre-jour No Interview ? ? Dead link, failed verification ✘ No
Oniros Film Awards Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Sea & Beach Film Festival Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Druk International Film Festival Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
World Film Carnival Singapore Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Cult Critic Movie Awards Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ No
Rome International Movie Awards Yes ? No Just the title listed ✘ 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}}.
  • Delete: The film is not notable per our standards. Little to no coverage in .fr sources, this is the best [5], it's basically a listing akin to the imdb. The awards won are not notable (none from notable film festivals), nor can I find confirmation of the Annecy win (the source used, Dailymotion, is not reliable). Annecy is a big deal in France, and the fact that zero media there have covered it is proof of non-notability. Here's the search [6] in Gnews, looking for sources from France: listings for kombucha drinks and other kinds of nonsense, completely unrelated ot this film. Oaktree b (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's the French wiki deletion discussion from 2015: [7]... The sources found were the films sponsors, none of which were in French either. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record: My French is limited but you're just reading the Afd nom's rationale apparently....and he (nor anyone on that page) does not say that no sources in French existed.... (not that it should have mattered the least, btw). Also, shall we delete every page the French Wikipedia has decided to delete? Good luck. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. In addition, the AfD on the French wiki is from 2015, whereas most sources provided here are more recent. Not only should this comment not be considered, but it also makes me wonder if the French article could not be restored. Streets4rage (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_animated_short_films#2013: and add the sources there, if it's judged insufficient for a page; but not opposed to Keep myself, given the sources presented and the number of screenings/awards. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for many reasons that follow the guidelines:
    • the film is worldwidely distributed and has received full-length reviews by at least three critics ten years after its initial release
    • the film is historically notable as it was screened in at least two (maybe up to eight or more?) festivals more than five years after initial release
    • in addition the film has been covered in at least two books in English (which I have added in the bibliography section) including one which considers it one of Dailymotion 120 successes
    • the Hungarian film database Mafab ranks the film as the 30th (among 3181) best short film and the 291st (among 3708) best animated film
    • and by searching for “BoOzy’ OS and the Cristal Gem” on Google, I found on the 1st page that the film is ranked 6th among the most consulted film listings on this French database. By the way, speaking of numbers, if we look closely at the Dailymotion source, the film had been watched on this website 144,032 times as of October 6, 2014, ie about a year and a half after its release. These numbers, like IMDB's, do not establish its notoriety but it is a coherent whole that is find almost everywhere which indicates that it has a substantial audience and not just limited to one geographical area.

In a short time, this is all I find; I don't have time to look further but all this (including comments above) seem really more than enough to me --Streets4rage (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't consider online views or listings in databases to prove notability. Unless the numbers are audited, they can be tricked/gamed by streaming farms. Similarly for online music, we don't use Apple/Spotify streams/downloads as proof of notability as they aren't audited the way radio airplay is or album sales at the retail channels are. Being 291st out of 3000-something films isn't terribly notable either... Oaktree b (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Streets4rage, thanks for adding the book sources to the bibliography. Unfortunately, neither of these meet the standard for reliable sources. You'll notice Dailymotion 120 Success Secrets was immediately removed by an uninvolved editor because Emereo Publishing republishes content that mirrors Wikipedia content. World Book of Short Films is a self-published book, which means it isn't acceptable as a source. I would recommend being a lot more cautious when taking facts from a press kit. hinnk (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree b, about numbers, Streets4rage did not write anything of the sort, quite the contrary: "These numbers, like IMDB's, do not establish its notoriety". 291st out of 3708 isn't terribly notable, but 30th out of 3181 is (but before making me say what I did not say: that does not establish notoriety ^^) - on the other hand, the first two points mentioned by Streets4rage do ("three critics ten years after its initial release" & "screened in at least two (maybe up to eight or more?) festivals more than five years after initial release"). Supersonic888 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Streaming numbers don't equal notability here, neither do non-notable film festivals. I'm unsure what being ImDB listed has to do with anything, we don't consider it for notability here, so being listed there is non-important here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is another source assessment table, based on those from Hinnk and Streets4rage (which was removed even though it contained important info for this vote). I think Hinnk is right about the books, so I'm editing here what Streets4rage wrote. It seems to me like WP:GNG has been reached. --Supersonic888 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Supersonic888
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
IMDb Yes No WP:IMDB Yes ✘ No
C2S Network No Press kit No Yes ✘ No
Dailymotion contest Yes Yes They are the organizers of the contest Yes Just the title listed as a contest winner, although "More infos" section lists a different winner
It's clear: the film was chosen by the public, and the jury chose another one 		✔ Yes
AllMovie Yes ~ WP:ALLMUSIC, AllMovie ratings seem unreliable since they're included even on upcoming/lost films No Mostly facts imported from Wikidata, otherwise just the numerical rating ✘ No
World Film Carnival Singapore Yes Yes ~ Dead link, failed verification, Internet Archive page is also empty
I was able to access the link a few days ago, but the page loads endlessly today. Maybe the site is under maintenance? I don't know how Internet Archive works, so I'm not validating it at this time. 		~ Partial
Monkey Bread Tree Yes Yes Offers coverage as a paid service
WP:AGF we should assume good faith: creators said they didn't pay for it 		Yes ✔ Yes
fiffest Yes Yes Offers coverage as a paid service
WP:AGF we should assume good faith: creators said they didn't pay for it 		Yes ✔ Yes
Paris à contre-jour No Interview Yes Yes Dead link, failed verification
link ok with Internet Archive, only video does not load and can be accessed here 		✘ No
Cult Critic No Interview Yes Yes ✘ No
Oniros Film Awards Yes Yes IMDB qualifying ~ Just the title listed
This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say 		~ Partial
Sea & Beach Film Festival Yes Yes IMDB qualifying ~ Just the title listed
This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say 		~ Partial
Druk International Film Festival Yes Yes IMDB qualifying ~ Just the title listed
This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say 		~ Partial
World Film Carnival Singapore Yes Yes IMDB qualifying ~ Just the title listed
This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say 		~ Partial
Cult Critic Movie Awards Yes Yes IMDB qualifying ~ Just the title listed
This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say 		~ Partial
Rome International Movie Awards Yes Yes IMDB qualifying ~ Just the title listed
This is the official announcement of the winners, there is nothing more to say 		~ Partial
Dailymotion 120 Success Secrets Yes No Emereo Publishing republishes content that mirrors Wikipedia content Yes Page 10 ✘ No
World Book of Short Films Yes No self-published book Yes Page 49 ✘ 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}}.
Supersonic888, please remove my name as the preparer of that table, its conclusions are very different than mine. In particular, the standard for WP:SIGCOV is that a source "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Meeting this with sources that do not discuss the subject in detail is not a reasonable interpretation. Similarly, invoking WP:AGF about whether or not the creators paid for coverage is off-topic. WP:RS is for evaluating the publication, not the production studio. We don't conduct our own investigations into the article's subject, we identify questionable sites that are sponsored/promotional in nature and then don't use them.
I appreciate your adding additional detail about how you accessed World Film Carnival Singapore. The Internet Archive has made backups of the URL in question 4 times in the past year, and it shows that the page has been broken for quite some time. For me, it strains credulity that the page was broken when I visited it on May 28, came back up only when you visited it later that day, and then immediately broke again for everyone. The place you would've been able to been able to get that quote would be the C2S press kit. That would mark the second time an editor in this AfD added material from the press kit that they couldn't actually have accessed but glossed over that fact.
Since I don't have time to do it myself, I would ask that the AfD closer evaluate this discussion for any signs of meat puppetry or off-wiki canvassing. hinnk (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hinnk, sorry about your name, I copied and pasted the table and didn't see it. It wouldn't have bothered me if you had changed it ^^
As for WP:AGF, I copied and pasted what Streets4rage wrote, too. I mentioned it and any way, it seems fair to me: your link for a paid service does not say that all reviews were purchased.
To be more specific about the World Film Carnival Singapore, I accessed the link at least a year ago through Facebook. But yes, I copied the link from the press kit, as for the other 2 reviews, which was easier because everything is in the same place (try to find a Facebook post from a year ago, good luck ^^). Besides, on my computer the link was grayed out, which shows that I had already accessed it. I cleared the cache this afternoon (French time) and since then it loads endlessly. I tried your archive links and it didn't work neither. I don't know how to put another date.
I don't see what this proves about me and I don't know what else to tell you, sorry. Yes, you can ask that the AfD closer evaluate this discussion for any signs of meat puppetry or off-wiki canvassing (I have more interesting things to do than that ^^), I won't speak for the others contributors but personally I don't mind ^^ Supersonic888 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I am super curious how some people found this AfD. (For transparency, I found it through a Commons file deletion discussion).
    Streets4rage hasn't edited this project since 2023 before finding this.
    SuperKFuu hasn't edited since 2022 before finding this.
    Supersonic888 has one edit in 2023 and otherwise also hadn't edited since 2022 before finding this.
    CineDany had 9 edits since 2021 before finding this
    I suspect some sort of outside canvassing is going on here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Hello The Squirrel Conspiracy,
    And I'm super surprised to read how you "arrange" and interpret things... So much bad faith!
    As for me:
    • you probably haven't seen it, but I contribute mainly to the Wiki in FR (I'm not a big contributor, does that prevent me from giving my opinion?).
    • you probably haven't seen it, too, but I participated in the debate on Commons on May 2 (because I used two images to illustrate the article in FR "Sonic the Hedgehog (films dérivés)", since I have to justify myself), almost a month before the opening of this discussion...
    • and by the way, you deleted the images on this article in FR so that you could then delete them on Commons... well done.
    • worse, you deleted the entire mention by indicating: « This was already deleted on fr.wiki as spam », which is totally false: the article was deleted as not notable, as already mentioned in the present discussion. You can also check it there: Discussion:BoOzy' OS et la Gemme de Cristal/Admissibilité. So this is absolutely not spam, it is an obvious lie - maybe to deceive contributors? I find it shameful coming from a contributor who seems experienced.
    I see that you closed the discussion on Commons, even though there was no consensus yet, in defiance of the contributors who defended the topic.
    Ah, since you seem to insist on super: my name here is Supersonic888, it starts with super, just like SuperKFuu... How doubtful! And Streets4rage starts with an S... Mmm. Lol ^^
    More seriously: no one asked me to intervene here, I did it on my own. Again, please do some checking, I don't mind.
    You think what you want, but it's very unpleasant to come here and read all these suspicions. So if you suspect, check rather than writing it down to sow doubt.
    Moreover, I imagine that by reading what you have written, a contributor who would like to leave an opinion for conservation risks not expressing his opinion, for fear of being accused too. In any case, it makes me regret having participated. Thank you. Supersonic888 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I just see that you asked for a speed deletion on all wikis with the message: "Spam. I believe there is a coordinated effort off-site to promote this non-notable project across a large number of Wikipedia languages. Already deleted on fr.wiki and will likely be deleted on en.wiki shortly."
    Once again, you use the word spam. No comment.
    In addition, you request a deletion without discussion, on a simple assumption on your part. For instance, I see on NL: "It must meet the requirements for speedy deletion, otherwise use the regular procedure for nominating pages."
    And once again, you are using the pretext of the deleted FR article. As Streets4rage wrote and at the risk of being accused again: "the AfD on the French wiki is from 2015, whereas most sources provided here are more recent.",
    And by the way, tell me if I'm wrong, but aren't the rules different from one wiki to another?
    But the worst thing is that you already consider that the page is going to be deleted, even though the debate is not closed and is far from consensus.
    Since the majority of articles have been deleted, you can justify the deletion on Commons. Well done!
    And you even removed images from Commons that are still used in Wikipedia articles. But since they are going to be deleted, you are getting a head start ^^
    Basically, there is no point in arguing here, your decision has already been made. What is the point of this discussion then? Supersonic888 (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating non-notable articles is spam, that's literally why we debate to remove them. They also note the English and Italian ones were created by the same creator, using the same type of sponsored, non-notable posts. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And this article was deleted on June 8th from Simple Wikipedia for G11 [8], but I'm not sure we could speedy this particular article on en-wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dailymotion is not significant coverage, it's literally a photo from the film. IMdB qualifying still implies user-supplied content, so not a reliable source. MonkeyBread Tree says on their FAQ:"Due to our small body of people working within the selection committee, we only grant submission fee waivers on a case by case review. We often only waive fees when someone has certain exceptional issues which would prevent them from being able to enter the festival without our help, such as: international blockades against a particular country, trade restrictions and a severe lack of funds…". Submission fees are paying, so again, not a valid sourcing. None of these are useful as sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Fiffest also takes payment for films: [9]. Have you even reviewed these sources before presenting your analysis? Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Oaktree b,
I don't know how IMdB "accept" festivals entries, but for example I don't find there the "Paris à contre-jour" award, which makes me think that it is not a recognized festival. So they accept some festivals, but not all (once again I don't know the criteria). I also don't know how IMdB validates its data, but I doubt it's simply with a declaration from users (at least for awards) because otherwise it would be easy to add fake awards in order to say that a film got an award at a major festival (Cannes, for example). On the contrary, I believe that this information is verified, I don’t see how it could be otherwise.
As for the festival fees, I understand what you say, and thank you for this Fiffest link (which I didn't read at the time: I admit I just looked at the film review). There are entry fees, that's a fact. Creators said they "pay to participate in festivals" (so no contradiction here), not that they purchased awards or reviews, which is very different. And about these fees, isn't this the case for all festivals? I am not an expert on the film industry but I can't imagine a festival like Cannes being free, otherwise they would be flooded with films. So yes, I agree the 8 (or 10) awards here have not the same value as the Cannes one, that’s obvious and I understand that this could not be a sufficient argument. But anyway, following WP:NFILM:
  • 1/ "the film is worldwidely distributed and has received full-length reviews by at least three critics ten years after its initial release" (if in doubt that the link for the World Film Singapore review is not found, we will say two critics).
  • 2/ "the film is historically notable as it was screened in at least two (maybe up to eight or more?) festivals more than five years after initial release"
Supersonic888 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the film festivals are not notable and we still have no extensive coverage about it. That's the matter here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fairly clear quid pro quo inherent to most of these online monthly film festivals. Of course they don't explicitly say "yes, here's the price for each award you win" - but when they give out dozens of awards every month, describe themselves up front as an "IMDb qualifying competition", and don't publish lists of non-award-receiving participants, I don't think it's any real secret what's going on. Omphalographer (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They still aren't notable, these are basically diploma mills. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Oaktree b and Omphalographer,
About lists of non-award-receiving participants, I couldn't find them on their website, too (maybe on social media? Too long to check, there are too much posts/photos). Creators said "Sometimes we've won awards (IMDb certified for those mentioned - do you think IMDb would support fake awards?), sometimes been nominated, sometimes just been selected, sometimes not.". On the film's Facebook page ([10]), I see that the film has been selected in other festivals than those mentioned here (Luleå International Film Festival in Sweden, Lift-Off Global Network at Pinewood Studios (UK, with "Vimeo on demand" service by the way), Prisma Film Awards in Rome...) and then nothing. So I guess the film did'nt win anything there, which shows that awards are not given to everyone.
I just consulted World Film Carnival Singapore and Cult Critic Movie Awards (which are both very messy), there are a lot of sources (but some seem of poor quality to me, it will need cleaning). It seems that there is an annual screening (and not monthly) and that the trophies are only awarded once a year, to the best films/directors (the monthly awards would be a sort of qualification?). On Google, I actually see only few people with these trophies. So these festivals may be diploma mills, but maybe not trophy mills. The director of the Cristal Gem won at least 2 (there were photos on Commons, which have just been deleted while the discussion is not closed) and his film was screened with a trophy presentation ceremony (at least in Singapore and Paro, I haven't checked for other cities/countries). For a small 5-minute French short film, I find it remarkable.
PS: I just found a secondary source for the Oniros Awards on universalmovies.it (film was finalist, before being nominated), which I will add to the article ^^ Supersonic888 (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Google, I actually see only few people with these trophies. Yeah, that's because they charge extra for those. I'm not even kidding - for example, the rules for the Oniros Film Awards state that "Trophies are optional, are not included in the submission fee and all Winners may order the trophy by paying production costs and shipping costs". Omphalographer (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are small, non-notable "film festivals" that have no notability offline. Sure, there's always the chance they can become notable in time, but we aren't there yet. We had a similar discussion in the last year about a Belgian film that involved time travel/ancient Egypt, using much of the same arguments here; for the life of me, I can't remember the name. These festivals were and are thinly veiled PR items that anyone can submit to after paying a fee, then can "Win". Paying for your trophy isn't really helping disprove my point either... Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Hill Ponies[edit]

Star Hill Ponies (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:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, given what was presented here and on the page (thanks Toughpigs) or at the very least Redirect to Bumper Films, if the said sources are really found insufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris King and Vicki Grant[edit]

Chris King and Vicki Grant (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)

This article doesn't have reception or signification coverage about the character, and the hero forms section was written awfully or its fully redundant; thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Dial H for Hero#1980s series - There is nothing here except for excessively detailed, primary sourced, in-universe plot summary. And the entirety of the plot information here is already present, in more succinct form, at the main Dial H article. Pretty much the only information here that is not already included there is that ridiculously long list of "Hero Forms" and "Villains" that is completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE information that should not be included. There is no reason for this to have ever been split out to a separate article as the same information is already covered at the parent article, making this a redundant fork that should simply be redirect back to the appropriate section of the Dial H article. Rorshacma (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and animation proposed deletions[edit]

Categories for discussion[edit]

Redirects for discussion[edit]

Templates for discussion[edit]

  1. ^ Sawyer, Sam (February 15, 2020). "SALEM Animated Series Creator Sam Sawyer, Cryptids, Nonbinary & Witchcraft". Piper's Picks TV (Online). Interviewed by Piper Reese. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020. YouTube video of interview here
  2. ^ "Exclusive S.A.L.E.M sneak peek". Inconceivable Events. November 13, 2020. Archived from the original on 19 September 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
  3. ^ Johnson, Bill (February 4, 2020). "Artist Sam Sawyer to LVL UP Expo". Las Vegas, NV Patch. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.
  4. ^ Sawyer, Sam (December 18, 2019). "Artist Sam Sawyer Creates First Animated Series with Non-Binary Hero". Starshine Magazine (Online). Interviewed by Sandy Lo. Archived from the original on November 18, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.
  5. ^ "Праздничный выпуск, музыкальное поздравление в исполнении юных звёзд и много подарков — мультсериалу «Енотки» 3 года". re-port.ru. Retrieved 2024-06-08.
  6. ^ "Мультсериал «Енотки» – детские мультфильмы на канале Карусель". www.karusel-tv.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2024-06-08.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Animation/Tasks&oldid=679516692"