Wikipedia:Notability (films): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:34, 18 June 2007

This page documents an English Wikipedia [[:Category:Wikipedia WP:NOTFILM
WP:NFs|WP:NOTFILM
WP:NF]].

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

[[Category:Wikipedia wp:notfilm
wp:nfs|Notability (films)]]

This page gives some rough guidelines intended to be used by Wikipedia editors to decide whether a film should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a film warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion.

These guidelines may be considered a specialized version of Wikipedia:Notability, applied to films, reflecting the following core Wikipedia policies:

Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on attribution; it is not enough to simply assert that a film meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources.

"Notability" as used herein is not a reflection of a film's worth. A film may be brilliantly created and acted, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an article in an encyclopedia.

General Principles

As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline:

The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

This guideline includes published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism excluding the following:

Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film.^[1]
Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database^[2]

The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with attribution in reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:

The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
- Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
- The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.^[3]
- The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
- The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.^[4]
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.^[5]
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Contemporary films vs. older films

Wikipedia, includes articles of lasting value, the objectivity of which is easier to determine with the passing of time. The current "buzz" surrounding certain films, and the anticipation of films leading up to their release may not ultimately translate into encycopedic notability. In the case of very recent films, critics and publishers may not yet have had time to create verifiable documents of a film's notability. However, there are a great many contemporary films which, due to their critical reception and large volumes of published material, are sufficiently notable to merit their own articles.

Other evidence of notability

Some films that don't pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant. Some inclusionary criteria to consider are:

The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn)^[6]
The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.
- An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.
The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited.^[7]

Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films

Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, articles on films that have not yet been publicly released (either theatrically or direct-to-video) are generally not appropriate unless the production of the film is itself notable in some way. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed, or not distributed, are generally not appropriate unless special circumstances render their failure notable.

Resources

When seeking out references to establish the notability of a film, and to provide the necessary information for a thorough article of high quality, consider some of these resources:

The Internet Movie Database does not establish the notability of a film in itself, but it can provide a lot of valuable information, including links to other reviews, articles, and media references, etc.
Film and entertainment periodicals abound. Many magazines in Category:Film_magazines can provide good references and indicators of notability.

Notes

^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the film. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its creator or producer) have actually considered the film notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
^ Many of these sources can provide valuable information, and point to other sources, but in themselves do not indicate a notable subject. Similar cases of "trivial" publications may include: reviews that are part of a comprehensive review of ALL films in a particular festival, that don't assert anything regarding the notability of individual entries; other forms of comprehensive, non-selective coverage; and some web based reviews by amateur critics who have not established their own notability as critics.
^ Examples would include the Sight and Sound Poll, AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movies, Time Out Centenary of Cinema, 1999 Village Voice Critics Poll, Positif's poll, etc.
^ This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete. Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, but it's not to be doubted that a Best Picture Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes would certainly be included. Many major festivals such as Venice or Berlin should be expected fit our standard as well.
^ See The United States National Film Registry for one example. Any nation with a comparable archive would equally meet our standards.
^ This should not be too widely construed, as any film could claim a unique accomplishment such as "Only film where seven women in an elevator carry yellow handbags."
^ This criterion ensures that our coverage of important films in small markets will be complete, particularly in the case of countries which do not have widespread internet connectivity (or do not have online archives of important film-related publications) and whose libraries and journals are not readily available to most editors of the English Wikipedia. In this case "major film producing country" can be roughly approximated as any country producing 20 or more films in a year, according to the report by UNESCO. Defining a "major studio" is highly dependent on the country in question.

Relevant debates

See

[1] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the film. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its creator or producer) have actually considered the film notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

[2] Many of these sources can provide valuable information, and point to other sources, but in themselves do not indicate a notable subject. Similar cases of "trivial" publications may include: reviews that are part of a comprehensive review of ALL films in a particular festival, that don't assert anything regarding the notability of individual entries; other forms of comprehensive, non-selective coverage; and some web based reviews by amateur critics who have not established their own notability as critics.

[3] Examples would include the Sight and Sound Poll, AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movies, Time Out Centenary of Cinema, 1999 Village Voice Critics Poll, Positif's poll, etc.

[4] This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete. Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, but it's not to be doubted that a Best Picture Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes would certainly be included. Many major festivals such as Venice or Berlin should be expected fit our standard as well.

[5] See The United States National Film Registry for one example. Any nation with a comparable archive would equally meet our standards.

[6] This should not be too widely construed, as any film could claim a unique accomplishment such as "Only film where seven women in an elevator carry yellow handbags."

[7] This criterion ensures that our coverage of important films in small markets will be complete, particularly in the case of countries which do not have widespread internet connectivity (or do not have online archives of important film-related publications) and whose libraries and journals are not readily available to most editors of the English Wikipedia. In this case "major film producing country" can be roughly approximated as any country producing 20 or more films in a year, according to the report by UNESCO. Defining a "major studio" is highly dependent on the country in question.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

Revision as of 10:09, 13 June 2007 edit Kevin Murray (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 14,650 edits →‎Epilogue: removed section which is redundant instruction ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:34, 18 June 2007 edit undo Radiant! (talk \| contribs) 36,918 edits per talk page, objections appear to be resolved Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~proposal~~\|[[WP:NOTFILM]]<br/>[[WP:NF]]}}		{{guideline\|[[WP:NOTFILM]]<br/>[[WP:NF]]}}

	This page gives some rough guidelines intended to be used by Wikipedia editors to decide whether a film should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a film warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is '''not''' a [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion\|criterion for speedy deletion]].		This page gives some rough guidelines intended to be used by Wikipedia editors to decide whether a film should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a film warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is '''not''' a [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion\|criterion for speedy deletion]].