 | This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. 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. |
This notability guideline for film-related articles helps decide whether a film-related topic should have its own article, and builds on the general notability guidelines and other core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, with additional criteria applicable to film.
General principles
editThe general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The link to the main article explains each criterion. A topic might be considered notable even if it only satisfies some of the criteria. Conversely, even if a topic is presumed to satisfy all of the criteria, group consensus may still determine that it does not qualify as a stand-alone article.
Additional criteria for the evaluation of films are outlined in the sections below.
Reliable sources
editOne of the general notability guideline's criteria is that coverage should come from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This section discusses a source's independence and reliability.
- Independence: The source needs to be independent of the topic, meaning that the author and the publisher are not directly associated with the topic. Authors should not include members of the production, and publishers should not include the studio or companies working with it on the production and release. The kinds of sources that are considered independent are those that have covered topics unrelated to the one at hand, such as periodicals. Books that discuss a film in a larger context or among other films are also potential sources; see this section's last paragraph regarding the amount of coverage in a source. Press releases, even if they are reprinted by sources unrelated to the production, are not considered independent.
- Reliability: The content guideline to identify reliable sources says, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Sources that have published materials in print (such as newspapers and other periodicals) are reliable if their publication process is considered reliable. If these sources also publish materials online, then it is usually fair to assume that these materials have a similar publication process (see WP:NEWSBLOG). If sources publish materials only online, then their publication process and/or the authority of the author should be scrutinized carefully. Note should be taken that IMDb is not considered a reliable source for proving notability.
To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include 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.[1]
Other evidence of notability
editA 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.
These criteria below are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying films that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a film meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film.
The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with 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.[2]
- 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. Further information on how to establish notability based on awards is listed below.
- The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[3]
- The film is taught as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
Inclusionary criteria
editSome films that do not 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)[4]
- The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their 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.[5]
Awards
editWins of and/or nominations for awards constitute a relatively common notability claim for films. However, as all awards are not necessarily equal builders of notability, the following are points to consider when evaluating notability based on awards.
National film awards
editIt is readily accepted that major national film awards constitute legitimate notability claims for films. Awards of this type include (but are not limited to) the Academy Awards in the United States, the BAFTA Awards in the United Kingdom, the César Awards and the Lumières Awards in France, the Canadian Screen Awards in Canada and the AACTA Awards in Australia, as well as major guild awards such as the Screen Actors Guild, the Writers Guild of America or the Directors Guild of Canada.
Wider continent-level awards, such as the European Film Awards and the Africa Movie Academy Awards, are also valid notability claims, as are awards from major regional or national associations of film critics.
Subnational film awards are more conditional. For instance, in Canada the Quebec film industry's Gala Québec Cinéma (Prix Iris) is a stronger notability claim than the British Columbia film industry's Leo Awards or the Alberta film industry's Rosie Awards, because the Quebec awards consistently get stronger GNG-worthy coverage, much more like fully national film awards, than the others do. Leos and Rosies may still be mentioned, where relevant and sourceable, but a film cannot rely on them as its sole notability claim.
Awards of this type should still be referenced to reliable source coverage in media to every extent possible. However, media do not necessarily always report the full slate of nominations directly, and sometimes just report the overall release of nominations while highlighting only a partial selection of the main categories and directing readers to the award's website for a more complete list, or name only the nominated films without naming the individual recipents of the nomination. Thus, the award's website may be used for sourcing nominations — but as these are still a primary source rather than a WP:GNG-building one, they should not be a film's only source.
Such an award does not have to be won to count as a notability claim; a nomination is sufficient.
Film festivals
editAwards from film festivals typically require much more attention and review, as this type of award is much more subject to abuse and manipulation.
It is readily accepted that awards from major, internationally prominent film festivals — such as Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Sundance or Toronto— are valid and legitimate notability claims for films. Awards from prominent genre-specialist film festivals — such as Hot Docs, CPH:DOX or FIDMarseille for documentaries, Annecy for animated films, and Sitges, Fantastic Fest or Fantasia for fantasy, horror and science fiction films — are also legitimate notability claims.
Awards from film festivals of more regional or local prominence can contribute to notability as well, but do not necessarily nail notability to the wall all by themselves. If a film is properly sourced over GNG and has multiple awards of this type, then these are perfectly acceptable to note, but a single award from this class of film festivals cannot be the sole notability claim for a film that is otherwise poorly sourced.
It must be noted that there exists a large network of fake "film festivals" that do not actually stage public events at all, but instead exist solely as vanity award mills from which filmmakers can buy themselves an award so that they can stick the phrase "award-winning" into their publicity bumf. For this reason, any film festival award that is referenced to self-published sources, such as the websites, social media presences or press releases of either the film festival or the filmmaker, instead of GNG-worthy reliable source reportage, must be reviewed to establish whether it is actually a real, notable film festival or not. if you cannot find any evidence that it is a film festival that receives media coverage to establish its validity, then it must be discounted as not a notable festival or award, and thus not a credible notability claim for the film.
It is also common for films to claim "nominations" for film festival awards that do not actually have "nominees". For instance, the Toronto film festival's People's Choice Award is an audience-voted award which every feature film in the entire festival program is eligible to win based on fan reaction. A film that wins, or gets named as first or second runner-up, for a People's Choice Award at TIFF is certainly notable on that basis, but a film must not claim to be notable on the basis of having been a "nominee" for People's Choice at TIFF, since every film at TIFF was automatically a "nominee" for People's Choice by virtue of its simple presence. Conversely, TIFF's Platform Prize is a curated program of approximately one dozen films that screen in competition for a specific juried award that is not open to other films outside of that competition — so, similarly to the competitive programs at Cannes, Venice and Berlin, a nomination for the Platform Prize is a legitimate notability claim.
As well, awards lists or tables must not be converted into exhaustive lists of every single film festival on the planet where the film was merely "selected". Selection for a film festival program is not an "award" in and of itself, and should not be listed in awards tables as if it were a notability-building "award".
Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films
editFilms that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun.
In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced.[6]
Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the 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 the guidelines.
Character articles
editFilm character articles should follow the recommendations at WP:GNG and WP:NFICT before being created.
If a film character was adapted from another medium or work, and the original incarnation of the character already has an article, a new article should not be created for the adapted version unless one of the following criteria has been met:
- This interpretation of the character has received extensive coverage and commentary from reliable sources. For example: Joker (The Dark Knight).
- This interpretation of the character has made three or more non-cameo appearances, including one in a lead or titular capacity. For example: Bruce Wayne (Dark Knight trilogy).
Please note that simply meeting the criteria above does not automatically mean an adapted character should have their own article. Before creating an article in the mainspace or moving a draft to the mainspace, please discuss on the draft's talk page, the film or television series' talk page, or relevant WikiProject talk pages to ensure the character is notable to justify a split of the original incarnation's article. Please also note that some franchises, such as the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force's WP:MCUCHARACTERS, have franchise-specific criteria which expand on this guideline.
Resources
editWhen 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:
- A film's entry in the The Internet Movie Database, or similar databases, 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.
- Film and entertainment periodicals abound. Many magazines in Category:Film magazines can provide good references and indicators of notability.
- Films which premiere at certain major film festivals (e.g. Toronto, Cannes, Berlin, Sundance, Telluride) will very likely see reviews in significant WP:GNG-worthy publications within the next few days. A film's notability must not, however, depend on sourcing it to the film festivals' own self-published catalogues of their own film lineups; a film can screen at a major film festival and still not attain sufficient notability to qualify for an article.
See also
editNotes
edit- ^ 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 publications where a mention does not establish notability 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Common steps in the animated film pre-production process are usually geared towards pitching the idea of the film by previewing the final product (for instance, storyboards, scratch voice-over tracks, and rough animations also known as "reels"), and such events do not fulfill the requirements of this guideline. Instead, this guideline attempts to ensure that the film has been green-lighted and is currently in production, as evidenced by activities analogous to live-action filming, such as recording of final voice-over tracks by credited voice actors, recording of final music and foley sound effects, and drawing or rendering of final animation frames.