Wikipedia:Notability (films): Difference between revisions

{{subcat guideline|notability guideline|Films|WP:NFILM|WP:NF}}

{{Notability guide}}

 

==General principles==

 

==Reliable sources==

One 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.

 

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 review]]s", 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]].<ref>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.</ref>

# 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 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.

 

== Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films ==

{{Further|Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films|Wikipedia:Planned films|WP:FUTURE}}

{{Shortcut|WP:NFF}}

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-over|voice-overs]] and music have commenced.<ref>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, [[Storyboard|storyboards]], [[Studio recording#The process|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-light|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 (filmmaking)|foley sound effects]], and drawing or rendering of final animation frames.</ref>

 

 

== Character articles ==

 

==Relevant debates==