Wikipedia:Notability (films)/November 2021 Draft RFC
RfC: Should we replace the NFF policy with new text?
edit{{rfc|policy|media}}
Background: Since 2008, the policy governing future films has been ambiguous, with two predominant and conflicting interpretations of the policy. This has resulted in frequent unresolved arguments during deletion discussions where one camp believes a standalone article on an unreleased film is premature and should be deleted, while the other camp believes a standalone article is beneficial and should be retained. This RfC attempts to clarify and present the two positions for discussion and community consensus.
Question: Which of the following should be done to the policy "Notability (films) § Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films"?
- Option 0 – No change. Leave it as it is.
Text of the current NFF policy
|
---|
Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films
|
- Option 1 – Swap it out with new language that clarifies that unreleased films can only have a standalone article if they receive significant coverage of the production phase of filmmaking and that the production phase is generally notable.
Text to replace current NFF policy (Option 1)
|
---|
Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films Films in the development or pre-production stages are rarely, if ever, considered notable enough to qualify for a standalone article. Content about such films may be included in other articles, such as those of the film's director, producer, lead actor or actress, or studio.[1] Budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date, and no assumptions should 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. Films in the production or post-production stages normally will not qualify for standalone articles. They may qualify if production itself satisfies general notability because production has received significant coverage by independent secondary reliable sources, such as broad coverage of accidents on set.[2] Sources must be provided to confirm the start of production phase has begun. The following do not contribute towards notability requirements at this stage: coverage of plans for the film; announcements of the cast and other personnel; interviews with filmmakers and cast members; and trivial mentions about the production of the film such as reports that filming has started or completed. 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 and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced.[3] There is no prohibition against starting a draft article on a film in anticipation of passing notability after it is released and distributed, and non-qualifying standalone articles may be draftified. Films that have been released and distributed are no longer future films and so are covered by the guidelines above. Films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have standalone articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.[4] References
|
- Option 2 – Swap it out with new language that eases the guidelines for notability for unreleased films, and allows for standalone articles sooner than option 1 would.
Text to replace current NFF policy (Option 2)
|
---|
Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films
|
- Option 3 – Other. Please specify.
Enter Option 0, Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3 (with details), followed by a brief explanation, in the Survey section below. Back-and-forth discussions between editors go in the Threaded discussion section below.