Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitter Harvest (upcoming film)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Notability is established. Discussions about the title can continue on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Harvest (upcoming film)

[edit]
Bitter Harvest (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be too soon. Not enough solid information and doesn't seem to be notable. -- Dane2007 talk 00:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Murph9000 (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "Bitter Harvest (film)" because this film already exist and described in a number of publications. Most sources exist on Ukrainian (please see version of this page on Ukrainian WP). The movie already exist and received significant press coverage, including such sources as RFE/RL - [1]. It only has not been released in US yet. too soon is an essay, not a policy-based argument for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article from Radio Liberty cited above is an interview with the filmmaker in November 2015, not a review. The Radio Liberty reporter didn't get to see the film, and the filmmaker says it wasn't finished yet. The Ukrainian Wikipedia says it was shown at the Cannes Film Festival in 2016.[2]. But it doesn't show up on the Cannes Film Festival site [3] or the Guardian's list of all films shown there.[4]. Can anybody find a WP:RS reliable source not PR-generated? John Nagle (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it also appears under the name of "The Devil’s Harvest" (see this and here). This publication on RFE/RL is a valid RS and an indication of notability. Some other sources: [5], [6] (that one is definitely not "PR"), [7], [8] (3rd party review). My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the cited reference, way down, after mentioning other films that were actually in the festival, there's this: "Film Market - this is not the program of the festival, but an opportunity to show the world their work. ... Within the market demonstrated the show in Cannes as Canadian film about Ukraine entitled "Bitter Harvest." Its presence in the city was impressive. Its advertisements in the city can be seen almost everywhere. The official brochure of the festival on the day of the show "bitter harvest" on May 17 he was given one of the pages of the cover. The picture is epic romantic drama for the first time in the history of English cinema touches Holodomor. Directors of Mendelyuk were George and Jan Ihnetovych. One of the roles starred Ukrainian actor Ostap Stupka. This film has already demonstrated this year at the Berlinale." That's it. It was marketed at the "film market", where films that didn't make the cut for the film festival can buy booth space. A booth at a trade show where films are shown on laptops is not notability. As for the Berlinale, they have an archive. Searching the archives of the Berlinale, the doesn't appear under either "Bitter Harvest" or "Devil's Harvest".[9] John Nagle (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't. Publications can and do make errors of fact too (e.g. by not adequately factchecking the topic's own potentially PR-inflated notability claims about itself), and as you just demonstrated it is very possible for an individual editor to either misinterpret or deliberately misrepresent what a published source is even saying in the first place. (This isn't even the first time in the past month that I've seen somebody try to stake a film's notability on screening at Cannes, when in fact it had simply been an exhibitor at the film market or the Cannes Lions.) We're not required to go around independently factchecking or reverifying every single thing that a source says about a film — but it is not original research to seek further verification in other sources if a claim is in dispute. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The film didn't make it into the competitive Berlin International Film Festival. It was at the European Film Market held alongside [10], another trade show where you rent a booth. Exhibitors get "priority access to screening slots".[11] It's not clear why this film hasn't achieved notability or found a market; the trailer isn't bad. But it hasn't. John Nagle (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never commented on AfD for movies before and did not know that movies should not have their own pages even if they have been already created, demonstrated in a few places and have independent coverage in several 3rd party sources (see links by me in discussion above). Thinking in terms of general notability guidelines, I do not really see any reason why they should not have their own pages. Hence keeping my vote above. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if a film has been made, things can still happen (e.g. no distributor picks it up at all) that cause it to never actually go into actual release anywhere. As of yet, the film has been "screened" only at industry trade events, and not at any general market festival. We cannot plausibly keep an article about every film that ever got made, even if it exists only in a vault somewhere and has never actually screened at even one real film festival — we do not start articles about films until, at the very earliest, a definitive premiere date somewhere has already been announced. It basically works very much like our rules for television series: we do not start an article about every television series that is known to have entered production, because many pilots get produced that never actually get picked up as a series — we start an article about a television series only once a real television network has announced a definitive premiere date at a real upfronts presentation. You're right about the independent coverage being necessary — but you're wrong about the other bottom line: it's not "film has been created", it's "film has been released". And that simply hasn't happened here yet. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explanation. No hard feelings. If this should be deleted, so be it. Maybe someone will recreate this page a few months later, after release, although I am not at all sure that anyone will. My very best wishes (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking this comment due to change in circumstances noted below. Replacement comment posted below for clarity of context. Delete. With rare exceptions on the approximate order of the Star Wars sequels, the time for a Wikipedia article about a film is not while it's in production or hustling to find a distributor. Once a distributor has picked it up and a formal release date has been announced, an article about it can be created at that time — but as long as we have to rely on misrepresenting industry trade shows as film festivals to make it notable, it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain — I've been thinking about this since it was nominated. Since I've been involved in trying to police the COI issue, and took it to AN/I, I think it's probably best that I abstain from the AfD. Murph9000 (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article has adequate sourcing for a GNG pass. With a $21M budget, we can reasonably assume that a finished product is in the pipeline, this is a fairly big budget film. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That puzzles me, too. Reasonably big budget. Name actors. Good subject. Good trailer. Promoted to distributors at two major film markets. Can't get distribution. No independent reviews. Not available online or in DVD/Blu-Ray format. Strange. John Nagle (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not having seen the film, I have no idea of whether it's actually any good, Nagle. It could well be that it's a generic 'against adversity' romance that could have been set against any backdrop and still have been a dud. Throwing money and a good cast at a film has failed hundreds of times in the past. Obviously, something's not clicking with the critics and the audience. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not change my "keep" vote and agree with Carrite because (a) the title is incorrect (this should not be "upcoming film"), and (b) there are many movies, including documentaries that deserve own pages if they were described in 3rd party sources as this movie was (see links in my responses above). My very best wishes (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The key item here is the new news in the trades, since this AfD began, that the film now has a distributor.[12]. The producers took the film to the Toronto film market in September, and there, it sold. It should appear in 2017. So I am changing my vote to "Keep". John Nagle (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Per the evidence presented here that the film has now landed a distributor and consequently does now have a planned 2017 release confirmed in a reliable source. I've withdrawn my original deletion argument, and note that the date on the "distributor and release date confirmed" article is October 6, which means that while every delete comment above was made in good faith based on the available information at the time, the distribution announcement is a new development that happened after those comments were posted. Title should be moved to "2017 film", however. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(2017 film) is probably appropriate. For Academy purposes (the Oscars), the year of release is the calendar year it first appears in theaters to paying patrons.[13]. Film festivals, markets, and other trade and marketing activities don't count. John Nagle (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That title exists on Wikipedia only as a redirect to this article, so there's no actual mess to clean up. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that the film really was released in 2014, as stated by the biography of Terence Stamp? Then why are we still talking about this as if the film hasn't been released yet? wbm1058 (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't; that's a simple, easily fixed error in Stamp's article that can be dealt with through the normal editing process, not a "mess" for AFD to deal with. Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why was this moved to the new title "2016 film", when the sourced release date is early 2017? Also, why is this still open almost two weeks after the last "further discussion needed" relist, when the consensus is no longer in any doubt? Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internal industry film market screenings, at events whose basic purpose is for as yet unreleased films to exhibit in the hopes of finding a distributor to buy them, aren't determinative of what year a film's title should be disambiguated at. The first public screening in a context that people who aren't industry insiders can attend (e.g. an actual film festival, general theatrical release, etc.) is what determines whether it's a 2016 film or a 2017 film. MOS:FILM says "year of public release", and says nothing about private film industry trade shows counting as public release. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitter_Harvest_(upcoming_film)&oldid=1137624939"