Wikipedia:Notability (films)

Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected."

Archived proposal

When considering whether a film is sufficiently notable to have its own article on Wikipedia, check to see whether it fits any of the criteria for inclusion listed below. If a film doesn't meet these guidelines, consider whether it might be better to discuss the film as part of a larger existing article, on a genre, period, movement, director, national cinema, festival, etc. If a film is not even notable enough to warrant a mention in such an article, then it very likely should not have an article of its own.

Keep in mind that different standards may apply to contemporary films and older films, as will be discussed later in this guideline. Similarly, a film produced in a major film producing country, such as India, The United States, or France, might be judged by different standards than a film from a nation with a very small national film output, or one that is largely isolated from the international film community.

If a film fails to meet at least one of these criteria, it is likely non-notable, and should not be the subject of its own Wikipedia article.Template:Fn If a film does meet at least one of these criteria, it is probably notable, but its notability may still be challenged in some borderline cases.

1. The film has been the subject of multiple, significant published works, whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers.
   • This criterion 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 filmTemplate:Fn
     • 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 DatabaseTemplate:Fn
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 releaseTemplate:Fn
   • 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 filmmakingTemplate:Fn
4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archiveTemplate:Fn
5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program

Contemporary Films vs. Older Films

At least to some degree, contemporary films should be judged by different standards than older films. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, seeks to include articles of lasting value, on notable subjects. Such values are easier to determine with the objective distance that comes 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 real notability.

Films that are still being discussed many years after their initial release have "stood the test of time," and have a reasonable claim to historical notability. Such notability is relatively easy to document, though it may still pose a challenge in the case of non-English language films which have not been widely discussed or seen outside of their country of origin.Template:Fn

On the other hand, contemporary films may be more difficult to evaluate for their notability. Promotion by producers, distributors, and parties directly interested in the film as a business venture, as well as the often ephemeral interest expressed by audiences, may cloud the issue of notability. These considerations can cause conflicts with the NPOV policies of Wikipedia if articles take on the role of promoting the notability of their subjects.

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.

For these reasons, the standards of notability for contemporary films must be reasonably tough, and they must be clear in their application.

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, 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)Template:Fn
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.Template:Fn

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. Verifiable sources should be provided to demonstrate that production has begun and substantial progress has been made. Films merely "in development" are subject to many rumors and unsubstantiated speculation, and such films often never reach actual production, let alone theatrical release.

Factors to consider are:

1. Has the film actually entered production or is it just rumored or expected to be made?
2. Has the production of the film generated multiple, non-trivial news stories? In other words: Does the film already satisfy the primary criterion?
3. Is there sufficient prerelease interest in the film, from critics and members of the industry, to strongly suggest the film will be notable upon release?

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. However, if such an unreleased film can meet the criteria in our basic guidelines, then a case can be made for its notability. An example of such a notable incomplete film would be Terry Gilliam's incomplete The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, which was the subject of a widely released documentary and featured in several published articles.

A Reflection Of Existing Standards

Although the standards presented in this guideline may appear tough, they are merely a reflection of a larger society's judgment on the notability of films. They are not as prescriptive as they may at first appear. The fact is, there has been a wealth of published information on films for over a century, on mainstream films, international film movements, notable genre films, "cult classics," animation and documentaries, and many special interest films. Any film that can reasonably claim notability should easily be able to fit these guidelines, by reference to these many published articles and reports. "Low budget" and "indie" films have gotten sufficient press to enable many of these films to demonstrate their notability.

These guidelines are not a judgment upon the "greatness," or quality of a film. Some very good films may not meet the standards of notability because they have not been broadly seen and reported on. Such films are not suitable subjects for Wikipedia articles, as they have not yet been deemed "notable" by the society outside of our pages. As much as film buffs enjoy seeking out hidden gems and obscure masterpieces, it is not the role of Wikipedia to help promote obscure films, or to comment on films that should be notable but aren't. Such an approach would fail to fit the Neutral Point Of View policies of Wikipedia. If a film has done the circuit of several international film festivals, but has failed to gather any critical notice by those who report on the festival scene, then it is not our purpose to conduct Original Research and bring these films to light. If you know of such a film, deserving of notice that it has so fair failed to attain, then please publish your report on this film in an appropriate film publication, before trying to use Wikipedia to publicize your find.

Not all Wikipedia articles on notable films have so far asserted their notability, or provided verifiable sources for their information. In the case of such articles, it is hoped that our editors will make a reasonable effort to seek out references and do their best to improve these articles. This guideline should help to improve existing articles, and establish high standards for future articles, rather than simply serving to exclude articles that haven't been adequately researched. There's a big difference between non-notable films for which sufficient verifiable references do not exist, and notable films with articles that leave a lot of room for improvement. If you can see a way to improve an existing article on a notable film, go ahead and improve it.

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. 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.
2. Film and entertainment periodicals abound. Many magazines in Category:Film_magazines can provide good references and indicators of notability.

Notes

• Template:Fnb It may, however, be mentioned in the context of another article, such as an article on a genre, or a list of films by year of release.
• Template:Fnb 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.
• Template:Fnb 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.
• Template:Fnb 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.
• Template:Fnb 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.
• Template:Fnb See The United States National Film Registry for one example. Any nation with a comparable archive would equally meet our standards.
• Template:Fnb We have to be, to some extent, flexible regarding films that are notable within the context of their own country's cinema, which are documented in articles that may be difficult to access through channels such as internet searches. References should be sought, but we should not be unduly biased against films that have not generated much English language press.
• Template:Fnb 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."
• Template:FnbThis 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.

Epilogue

This proposed guideline is meant to reflect, as far as possible, community consensus on the issue of film articles. If you disagree with it or feel that it fails to reflect consensus please improve it directly or state your concerns on the talk page.

Relevant debates

See

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Film_Notability.2C_and_Notability_in_general
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Please_lend_your_voice_to_notability_guideline_discussions.21
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film and TV
• This Article's Talk Page