Wikipedia:Other evidence of film notability
|This unofficial guidance essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, although it may be consulted for assistance. It may contain opinions that are shared by few or no other editors; potential measure of how the community views this essay may be gained by consulting the history and talk pages, and checking what links here.|
|This page in a nutshell: This essay addresses possible misinterpretations related to WP:NF's "Other evidence of notability". That section is Not a guideline mandate, and only acts to offer examples of situations that are intended to encourage editorial diligence in seeking verifiability.|
The attributes listed as "Other evidence of notability" as described in WP:Notability (films) are not mandated requirements which must exist, but are presented within that guideline as a list of examples and situations to encourage due diligence in editors looking for sources that provide proper verifiability of assertions within a film article. If the attributes offered for consideration are not met, it does not mean a film is somehow and automatically non-notable, as notability is dependent upon verifiability, and even the least of sources that offer the mandated verifiability need not themselves be significant coverage, as WP:V and WP:SIGCOV should not be confused with each other. Though the two are related, they mean different things.
On film notability
When we have significant coverage of a topic in multiple reliable sources, we look to the general notability guideline and its stating "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That's pretty clearcut as WP:Notability (films) readily encourages the usefulness of the general notability guide. But in the lack of significant coverage, we are encouraged to look to subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) such as WP:NF to see if an article's assertions are at least verifiable in reliable sources so as to determine if a topic may be worthy of note nonetheless.
On attributes to consider
Not all notable topics have current or sustained significant coverage. In WP:NF#Other evidence of notability we have an explanation of this by its stating "A topic related to film may not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, but significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films. The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist".
This section instructs that if the GNG is not immediately met, we have other indicators of notability, just so long as proper sources for verifiability of attribute assertions are available. This does not mean that these attributes MUST exist, as there is a common sense understanding that not all notable topics get wide or continued media coverage. This portion of WP:NF is set to offer examples of instances that could allow a reasonable consideration of notability even without the wished-for significant coverage... just so long as the instances are themselves verifiable in reliable sources.
While SIGCOV is a strong indicator of notability, it is not an absolute mandate. A film might be determined notable even in the lack of SIGCOV.
Examining the attributes
|Wikipedia:Notability (films) quote||Explanation|
|"The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."||This is not a demand that only reviews by nationally known critics are to be considered... it is simply offered as one of the examples that suggest a diligent search, and includes the consideration of genre-specific reviewers who are respected and expert in their field of expertise.|
|"Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release."||This includes the consideration of reviews and critiques of subsequent DVD releases as long as they meet criteria for reliable sources and not trivial. This is inapplicable to films less than five years old.|
|"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."||This includes the consideration of genre-specific reviewers who are respected and expert in their field. This is inapplicable to films less than five years old.|
|"The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release."||This includes the consideration of DVD release or re-release or screenings at genre-specific festivals and retrospectives. This is inapplicable to films less than five years old. A commercial re-release or festival screening requires verifiability of the accomplishment without also mandating significant coverage of the re-release or screening.|
|"The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema"||This includes the consideration of genre-specific retrospectives and screenings, and is less likely to be applicable to recent films. This attribute requires verifiability of it being so featured without also mandating significant coverage of it being so featured.|
|"The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking."||This includes the consideration of genre-specific awards at genre-specific festivals. Note: Wikipedia:Notability (films) lists some major awards, but specifically states that "standards have not yet been established to define a major award". So genre-specific awards, major for their genre, would qualify. This attribute requires verifiability of the award without also mandating significant coverage of the award.|
|"The film was selected for preservation in a national archive".||This is a common sense consideration that if a film was deemed important enough to be preserved for posterity, it is notable enough for information on that film to be preserved in Wikipedia. This attribute requires verifiability of such preservation without also mandating significant coverage of the preservation.|
|"The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program."||If a notable teaching institution uses the film as part of the curriculum in the teaching OF filmmaking, it is notable enough for Wikipedia. This attribute require verifiability of the film being in the curriculum without also mandating significant coverage of it being in the curriculum.|
|"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.""||Verifiable "uniqueness" can equate to notability, even in the lack of significant coverage. A unique accomplishment requires verifiability of the accomplishment without also mandating significant coverage of the accomplishment.|
|"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"||A notable actor, director, or producer's first film or final film could be seen as "important" in context to examination of their careers, if verifiable. This attribute require verifiability of the involvement of the notable person, without also mandating significant coverage of the involvement.|
|"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"||Related to "unique accomplishment in cinema", if a country is not or, if at the time of the film's creation was not, discernible as a "major film producing country", then the creation of a film by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio" is a unique accomplishment and worthy of note. A unique accomplishment requires verifiability of the accomplishment without also mandating significant coverage of the accomplishment.|
Sources may exist that satisfy the WP:GNG and WP:N even if not among these listed attributes, as these attributes are not intended to be exclusionary... they are simply a guide to encourage a diligent search.
While all verifiability and all significant coverage must be from reliable sources and, while preferred by many, verifiability need not itself be significant coverage in showing a meeting of this subject-specific notability guidelines. While the two terms share a relationship, they mean different things.