Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open content film


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   redirect to Open source film. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Open content film

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. Two barely contextual mentions and nothing else. Delete. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time finding a source that makes any distinction between this an and open source film, which seems to be the name primarily in use in the world at large. However, I can find sources that document open source films (ISBN 9781847286116 pp. 169 and ISBN 9780955014321 pp. 163 for examples).  This article is confused (stating that there's no definition of the subject and presenting one seemingly obtained from thin air immediately afterwards) and cites no sources for almost all of its analysis.  (The content with accompanying sources that there is contradicts the rather different sourced content in the articles on the films concerned, moreover.)  However, it's a credible alternative title for open source film, and there's been a merge request on Talk:Open source film, noting this duplication, since November 2009.  So just redirect there and let people hoist things out of the edit history to merge if they find sources that actually support them. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to open source film, substantially per Uncle G. The content here is not sourced well enough to merge directly, but the history might be of use, and this is a reasonable search term.  Eluchil404 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect - per above. The current article appears to be original research to a degree with the claim that there is no accepted defintion and then immediately providing a set of criteria under which a film would be considered open content.  There is no verifiable content here to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to open source film, as per Uncle G. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.