Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Chapter of Men

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was incubate. Wikipedia:Article Incubator/A Chapter of Men Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Chapter of Men

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable short film due to be released. All references are to either reliable source information on the principal's previous works/awards, or WP:SPS that don't establish notability. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly is the film non-notable? As is visible on the opening of the trailer, the project was produced with Paramount Vantage, which establishes notability. In addition the director has achieved notability with several award-winning short films, of which this is his latest. The film was also co-written with an established feature film screenwriter. - JohnnyB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.40.227 (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @ JohnnyB: Please read WP:Too Soon (films). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having a movie produced by a notable company or group does not give it automatic notability. According to WP:NFF, the standards for a future film are that the film must have had quite a lot of coverage through reliable and independent sources to show that the production and its impending release are notable. I haven't checked for sources yet, but I just wanted to stress that notability is not inherited from any notable persons, groups, or companies that might be involved or associated in the film. (WP:NOTINHERITED) It makes it more likely that the film would have gotten coverage needed to achieve notability, but that notability is not automatically given to it through association.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. There is absolutely zero coverage of this film in independent and reliable sources. The sources in the article are either primary sources, IMDb links, or don't mention the film at all. None of them can be used to show notability for the short. IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source at all per WP:IMDB, although it can be sometimes used as a trivial source. Primary sources can only be used if there's multiple independent and reliable sources to show notability, which isn't out there. Sources that don't talk about the film at all aren't usable at all to show notability for the film. As said above, notability is not inherited by the film working with or under notable people. For example, Woodrow Wilson could come back from the dead just to act in the short, but that in itself wouldn't give the film notability. The resulting coverage is what would establish notability, which is what is ultimately lacking here. Maybe once it's released and gets some notice it will pass WP:NFILM, but it fails WP:NFF at this point in time. Both are strict to pass, but WP:NFF is incredibly strict in its guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate article for a few weeks per WP:ATD as this one is just a tad premature. The article tells us that release is slated for March 31, 2012... after which, WP:NFF will not apply and we can then (hopefuly) expect commentary and review in reliable sources to meet WP:NF and WP:GNG... a threshold that has not yet been met. At the very least the article can be temporarily redirected to the filmmaker's article and the redirect undone and the article then expanded and sourced upon its release. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to incubate. Since it releases in a few weeks it wouldn't be a bad idea to incubate this until then. Good catch, Schmidt!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate Very sensible idea.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate Agreed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.219.14 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2012 (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.