Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rigoletto (1993 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Rigoletto (1993 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Weakly sourced article about a minor league film of questionable notability. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I found these, and, but I will leave it for others to decide if they count toward the notability requirements.  Donald D23   talk to me  23:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this film doesn't seem to have received any attention outside of Christian media. Niche product for a niche audience. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not finding much myself - I think that this might be an OK redirect to Rigoletto. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So could we make that merge now or do we need to wait for this AfD to run its course? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Just Another Cringy Username We wait, and if the closer decides "redirect" is consensus, they'll do that themselves. -- asilvering (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect – Many niche products for niche audiences can be notable, alas this one is not. Redirecting per Tok, um.. RotP suggests is appropriate, with a little line blurb explaining the film. Would suggest more concurring comments before closing early, there is no rush.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on below, no longer support a redirect. I just cannot get myself to decide on keep/delete, which would be very weak in either direction. So many red link cast/crew does not make for a support call, yet the fact that this film spawned a theatrical musical does make it somewhat noted. Adding in the above refs may be warranted, as well as an overhaul of the plot. Do find it interesting that there have been no support deletion arguments made which makes me think this is one of those types of items that should be nurtured rather than deleted.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  21:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything to make the stage version any more notable than the movie itself. No Broadway run, etc. Nobody notable on the creative team. No famous actors (or even "Christian famous" actors) have ever appeared in it. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk &#124; contribs) 02:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not redirect to Rigoletto. As the article explains (section "Crew"), the plot of the film is unrelated to the opera; it's a mix of "Beauty and the Beast" and The Phantom of the Opera. I changed the article on Rigoletto and this one accordingly. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's actually good to know! I hadn't realized that! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment:If they keep it, I'm stubbing it.Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just not enough coverage or references cited to establish notability. If kept, needs to be heavily trimmed. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * This is the second renewal and I don't think you're going to get anything more than what's already been said. This movie is not notable enough for any further discussion. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Review: "Film Reviews: RIGOLETTO" Leydon, Joe. Variety (Archive: 1905-2000); May 15, 1995; 359, 3. Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive. pg. 100. Via Proquest. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The Variety review and the Deseret News article from years later are sufficient. I'll add info from Variety soon. Article needs work, but that's a separate issue. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2022 (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.