Wikipedia:Notability (films)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"WP:NF" redirects here. For Wikipedia's policy regarding non-free media, see Wikipedia:Non-free content.
"WP:MOVIE" redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Films.
For notability policy regarding fictional topics (Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)), use shortcut WP:FICT.
✔ This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
Shortcuts:
WP:NOTFILM
WP:NF
WP:MOVIE
Notability
Inclusion guidelines
Academics
Books
Films
Music
Numbers
Organizations & companies
People
Web content
Active proposals
Aircraft
Criminal acts
Fiction
Places and transportation
Schools
Serial works
Streets and roads
Toys and games
See also
Common deletion outcomes

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.

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

Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability; 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.

Contents

[edit] 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 reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:

  1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
  2. 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.
  3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[4]
  4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[5]
  5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

[edit] 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 encyclopedic 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. Nevertheless, a great many contemporary films are, due to their critical reception and large volume of published material, sufficiently notable to merit their own articles.

[edit] 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:

  1. 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]
  2. 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.
  3. 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]

[edit] Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films

Shortcut:
WP:NFF
Further information: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films

Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. Until then discussion of the film may be included in articles about the film's subject material. Sources need to confirm the start of shooting after shooting has begun.

Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per notability guidelines.

[edit] 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:

  1. A film's entry in the The Internet Movie Database can provide valuable information, including links to reviews, articles, and media references. A page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability, however.
  2. Film and entertainment periodicals abound. Many magazines in Category:Film magazines can provide good references and indicators of notability.

[edit] Notes

  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 an 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.

[edit] Relevant debates

See