Mad Wax: The Surf Movie : The only notability claim in evidence here is that the film exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of a WP:GNG -worthy volume of third-party media coverage about the film to externally validate its significance -- but the sourcing consists of two directory entries that aren't support for notability at all, and one short blurb on a blog that doesn't represent enough coverage to vault this over GNG all by itself. In fact, I strongly suspect that this was really meant as a WP:COATRACK for the soundtrack album, since the creator's edit history pertains much more strongly to music (including the band credited with the soundtrack's creation) than it does to film -- but albums aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist either , and still have to be shown to have GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them, but absolutely none of the sourcing here addresses any potential notability under WP:NMUSIC either.  Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film, or its soundtrack album, from having to be the subject of quite a bit more media coverage and analysis than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Music ,  and Australia .  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Found a few articles that may be enough to establish notability: [4] [5] WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Medium is a user-generated blogging platform, and thus doesn't count as GNG-building coverage per WP:MEDIUM , and the Forte link isn't taking me to an article about this film, but just to a blank page that keeps feeding me "recommended" other articles it wants me to read.  Bearcat ( talk ) 12:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Forte link does dwell upon the film and is signed (John Foss).  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not only a COATRACK for the soundtrack, but it was certainly also made as an infomercial for the surfboard manufacturer's products, as most surf and ski films are.  Nate • ( chatter ) 16:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sources exist: https://www.surfertoday.com/surf-movies/mad-wax-the-surf-movie https://www.surferrule.com/mad-wax-the-surf-movie/ https://www.surf30.net/2020/01/mad-wax-la-parafina-magica.html mentions in studies on surf films: https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/940602/06020042.htm ; https://filmlexikon.uni-kiel.de/doku.php/s:surfenimfilm-2483 - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're not looking for blogs, directory entries or glancing namechecks of its existence in lists, we're looking for analytical coverage about the film in reliable sources .  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Add.  The film is repeatedly presented as a cult-classic of its genre.  See: https://campaignbrief.com/world-wide-minds-ben-nott-pays/； https://surfingworld.com.au/watching-making-surfing-motion-pictures/ ； https://www.theinertia.com/gear/altra-olympus-5-hike-low-gtx-hiking-shoe-review/ , https://www.surfertoday.com/surfing/the-magical-surf-wax-with-teleporting-powers etc.  There are many other sources.  This film seems clearly notable and  I will leave it at that. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank)  Comment But are there any sources outside of the surf industry?  That's what's more important; we don't want circular references.  Nate • ( chatter ) 16:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Circular references is a valid concern, but sources being industry specific is not, only reliability matters for sources.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 18:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, but it hasn't been adequately established that the sources being shown here are reliable or WP:GNG -worthy at all.  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Sure, there is a source for the film's release and its spinoff.  But what about the soundtrack?  As of now, I don't see it.  Also, because of Wikipedia's demand for sources, just having one clearly isn't enough.  HarukaAmaranth ( 話 ) 02:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete IMDB is the first in google search, then a surf website, then pinterest and amazon.  There is nothing to be found for this film, making it non-notable.  Delete for lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails NF; clearly not notable at all!  Ekdalian ( talk ) 14:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: delete