Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Noah Baumbach project

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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Noah Baumbach project

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an unreleased film. As always, Wikipedia does not keep an article about every film that can be minimally sourced as having entered the production pipeline -- with extremely rare exceptions for hypernotable films on the order of the Star Wars franchise, most films are not notable until they have been released, and thereby received reviews from reputable film critics, and a small bit of initial casting announcement coverage is not enough to make it a special case yet. Just because the director has a WP:BLP does not automatically mean we need to rush-job a premature article the moment he announces that he's working on something new — if you don't even know a title or anything about the plot yet, let alone an actual release date, then you need to wait until you do know those things before a standalone article becomes warranted. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Draftify till it has a title. The film has been in post-production since March 2018, and will be released this year. Baumbach has a habit of not titling his films until very near release. This one has significant enough coverage, but there have been previous films called "Untitled Noah Baumbach Project", so it's best to keep this off mainspace till it has a title. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep completely absurd rationales. A film doesn’t need to be titled to have an article, it does need to pass WP:NFF, which it does. Seriously, this article has to be deleted because it doesn’t have a title yet? That’s a new one. In addition, TOOSOON is an essay, NFF is a guideline. The core thing that is require for a film article to be in mainspace is if we can source its filming. For this films case it has finished filming and has been bought by Netflix to be aired later this year. It has zero risk to fall apart at this point because the film has been shot. It is waiting for it’s release. The nomination seems to feel every project needs Star Wars tier coverage to exist before its released, and that’s a an unrealistic expectation. As long s we can source the major aspects that it needs to be considered notable, than it should be able to stand as its own article. This employs this ridiculous, unrealistic expectation that every future film article needs Star Wars tier coverage to exist in Wikipedia before its release. What’s more beneficial to the reader: giving them an article about an impending film prior to release? Or withholding it because it’s not Star Wars? Rusted AutoParts 23:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The core thing that is normally required for a film article is that the film has been released. The "principal photography" test only applies to a very rarefied tier of extremely high profile films on the order of the Star Wars or Marvel franchises, which get a lot more production coverage than usual, and does not automatically apply to every film just because you can single-source the fact that photography has started. If a film isn't getting an inflated Next-Star-Wars-or-Marvel-film volume of coverage throughout the production process, then the notability test remains that the film has been (or is verifiably close to being) released. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is total selectiveness, or cherry picking as you said in another of these discussions. Nowhere in the guideline says the film has to be Star Wars tier covered to meet guidelines. It needs to be reported in (casting news, directing news), and of course filming citations. This has that. It passes the requirements. Rusted AutoParts 00:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the standard that a film had to meet to qualify for an article, then every film that any film director ever even started would always qualify for an article on that exact same basis, because we can always find one source to confirm that production has started on absolutely every film (including many that never got released at all) — which is why that isn't the notability test for films. I'm 100 per cent correct about what the notability test for films is: either they get an outsized volume of production coverage much greater than most films get, or you wait until they're released. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re sensationalizing to justify your misguided point, as well as misconstruing just general production with principal production. WP:NFF is clearly if we can’t source its filming it can’t be in mainspace. All these articles you’re attacking are meeting the appripate requirements to exist and they all seem to share the same thing: they are untitled. That’s not a sound reason to decide it’s not notable. Rusted AutoParts 00:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "sensationalizing" anything — it's a plain hard fact that if all we had to do to make a film notable enough for a standalone article was single-source that principal photography had commenced, then every film would always get an article at exactly that point in the timeline even if it never gets released at all. Which is why it's a plain hard fact that our notability criteria for films work exactly the way I said they did: a few especially high profile projects that get a lot more production coverage than normal, like the Star Wars or Marvel films, get to claim notability once principal photography has begun, but the vast majority of films do not get to claim notability until the film is released. That's not me being sensationalist, or misrepresenting anything or being selective: it's the established consensus around how the notability of not-yet-released films works.
And you're also not paying attention if you think I only singled out untitled films, because I also nominated a bunch of unreleased films with titles, or if you think that being untitled was the reason I listed any of the untitled ones. Bearcat (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you’re just undermining, as you painting it to seem like there’s only one source on the article to prove it’s filming. I’ll include this exact passage from NFF: Films 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. Filming had begun and has concluded. Nowhere within the NFF guideline states that the film has to have been released or received a realease date to be notable enough. In my opinion that’s an enforcement of a personal preference in your end. What I posted from NFF is the criteria. Where’s yours coming from? Rusted AutoParts 00:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not expressing any personal preferences of any sort. I am 100 per cent correct about what the established consensus of Wikipedians is when films come to AFD for debate: the core notability test that a film normally has to pass is that it has been released. A very small elite tier of highly notable films on the order of the Star Wars or Marvel franchises, which generate a lot more production coverage than most films get, can claim special-case notability once principal photography has begun — but not just every film can claim notability on that basis, and the vast majority of films have to wait until they're released. I'm not wrong about this, and I'm not making up my own rules: it's the established consensus of the Wikipedians who participate in film AFDs. It's not enough to just cite the letter of a notability guideline, especially if you're taking it out of context — NFF is part of NFILM, not a standalone statement of its own that can be interpreted indepdendently of the rest of NFILM. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of previous AFDs does not speak for other articles. We may as well toss guidelines out ingeneral if all we should follow is previous AFDs. This entire stance of your is so faulty. 1) TOOSOON is an essay, not an enforceable guideline. 2) a film does not need to be released to receive notability. It can receive traction throughout it's production history. Casting, filming, production details. It all plays hand in hand. To set your standard of it needs Star War notoriety is absurd. NFF and NFILM do not support your claims. AFDs do not dictate the fate of other articles. If you wanna change what the criteria should be, go for it. Don't try and change what it is based off what you think it should be. I have combed through NFILM countless times, and it always has been dependent on when the film entering the filming part of production, not when it is released. Rusted AutoParts 00:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, read WP:ONLYESSAY. For starters, guidelines are also essays, so are not more "enforceable" than essays are: they carry exactly the same weight as each other, and are not dismissable just because they're essays.

Secondly, AFDs are where inclusion and notability standards get tested and determined or revised — notability guidelines, in fact, often lag behind significant changes in consensus. So in the event of a dichotomy between your perception of what a notability guideline says and the actual results of actual AFD practice, the AFD results take precedence over the guideline statement, not vice versa.

Thirdly, nothing I have said in this discussion represents me trying to impose my own opinion about what the standards should be instead of what they are. I am 100 PER CENT CORRECT about how the notability standards for films work: the core test is that the film has been, or is very close to being, released, and notability during the production process attaches only to an elite tier of highly notable films that generate a lot more coverage during the process than most other films do. Not because I said so, but because established consensus said so. NFILM has never extended automatic permanent notability to every film as soon as principal photography started; for one thing, even films that do start principal photography still don't always invariably ever actually get released at all, and for another, even some films that do get released still don't always actually get over the notability bar: some completed films only ever get screened at a buyer's market, or the "local amateurs" programming stream at the filmmaker's own hometown film festival, without ever actually picking up any commercial distribution at all. So no, the commencement of principal photography is not the notability bar for most films: it's enough for a select few very high profile projects, but not for every film that exists at all — the vast majority of films do have to wait until they're released. This is not my opinion: it's established Wikipedia consensus. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep saying you're "100% correct", I'll still 100% disagree. An article needs reliable sourcing to prove it`s existence and prove it`s notability. These articles have that. The release date criteria is one part of a bigger criteria. To only say that the release date dictates it is so very wrong. We clearly disagree and all this is is us going in circles. If it's determined it can't exist in mainspace whatever, move it to draftspace. Don't do away with so much information that will have to be tracked down all over again. Rusted AutoParts 01:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not just "count up the footnotes and keep anything that surpasses two" — it also tests for several factors besides the raw number of footnotes present in the article, such as the range and depth of what the coverage represents and the context of what the coverage is being given for. It is simply expected that every film that enters the production process at all can always show a couple of routine sources, such as a casting announcement and/or a blurb confirming that the film has started shooting — so a film does not automatically cross NFF's "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" bar just because the article has two or three footnotes in it. If that were all it took, we would always have to keep an article about every single film that ever started principal photography at all, even if it was never actually released. What it takes to get a film past that gate while it's still in the production pipeline is the provision of much more sourcing than most films can routinely show, such as a film that can show dozens of distinct sources rather than just two or three. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You make that quote about footnotes as if I ever said that. I didn’t. I don’t advocate for every single film that has entered principal photography to be made into articles I advocate for the ones that can be tied back to multiple different citatations reporting in different aspects of its development and production. Some never get reported on, most do. And those most are the ones I create articles on. These three you targeted are reliably sourced to verify it’s notability. Target the ones that can’t verify squat. Rusted AutoParts 15:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who said that a film is notable enough for an article as soon as one source has confirmed that principal photography has begun, ignoring the facts that (a) very few films could ever actually not show that, and (b) even the sources that confirm the commencement of principal photography are almost always either press releases from the producers themselves, or thinly-veiled summary rewrites of them, rather than actual third-party journalism. To get its notability advanced from the standard "once it's been released" to the special "while it's in production", a film requires much, much more, wider and deeper coverage than just the basic routine production announcements that every film can always show. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the criteria in NFF. I followed the criteria that a film has to be filming to exist as an article. At no point in the 7-8 years I've been making film articles has the rationale that "it must be released" been applied. Because people can generally agree that the notion a film must have Star Wars coverage in order to exist is unreasonable and comparing two different types of movies. Like I said before, all this is is us talking in circles. We disagree, we'll see where the discussion goes. I wish that before you made these deletion discussions that you considered the WP:ATD:alternate paths other than deletion, like returning to draftspace or making a motion for it to be redirected (yes, i undid your redirection for the Breaking Bad film, doesn't mean a discussion about it being redirected couldn't have taken place), so that the information can actually be preserved as opposed to erased. You may not care, but it actually took time to compile this info. Rusted AutoParts 21:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Look, I doubt I have many (if any) edits on the articles that were put up for deletion, but I felt compelled to put my view on several discussions across, because I felt they definitely passed notability guidelines today. I do find it very poor form from users when they would rather delete hours of work rather than try to come to another solution as Rusted AutoParts says. You can disagree that these articles should be in the mainspace, sure, but to want them deleted comes across as exceedingly arrogant. Somethingwickedly (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, ATD is hardly a trump card in an AFD discussion: AFD is precisely the forum that's empowered to determine whether deletion, or some other alternative, is the appropriate course of action over disputed content. If I redirect a film to a related topic and you disagree and revert me on it, then AFD is exactly the correct place to go to test for other people's input on whether it's redirectable or deletable or keepable — which is not to say that AFD always has to weigh in before redirection can happen in the first place, but once two editors have disagreed over redirection then an AFD discussion is an appropriate course of action to resolve the dispute.
And by the same token, AFD is exactly where one has to go to get a consensus to move a page from mainspace into draftspace in the first place — it's not a thing any user can just arbitrarily do to any random page (for one thing, if I had tried it you would have reverted me on that too), or a thing that the requested moves process is empowered to even consider, but a thing that requires an AFD discussion to come to a consensus that sandboxing is desirable. ATD certainly covers off the fact that there are more options beyond just "keep" or "delete" that AFD can consider — but it's not an argument against ever having an AFD discussion in the first place, because AFD is very often the most appropriate venue for having the discussion about whether content should be kept or deleted or redirected or draftspaced.

And secondly, the standard WP:NFILM test has never been that any film can always have an article as soon as one source has been added that confirms that filming has started. I can entirely believe that you perceived the notability standards for films that way — you've already made that very clear — but that's never been the consensus position about where the notability bar for films is. As I've stated many times, the vast majority of all films that enter the production pipeline at all can show a blurb in the trade papers announcing that photography has commenced, and a casting announcement or two — with the potential exception of the debut short films of recent film school graduates whom nobody has ever heard of before, as soon as a film director is actually a known quantity every new film they undertake will always have casting and photography announcements show up in the trades. {Even films that completely fell apart and never actually got released, and thus don't qualify to keep articles at all, can usually also show that two or three or four pieces of production coverage happened before the production fell apart!) So the notability test for unreleased films is not, and never has been, that they're fair game for Wikipedia articles as soon as a couple of casting and photography announcements have shown up in the trades — the bar for most films has always been that we can properly source that they either have been or are about to be released to theatres, and to be deemed a special notability case any earlier than that a film has to have received an unusual volume of production coverage that plainly makes it significantly more notable than most other unfinished film projects. I acknowledge that you perceived the cutoff differently than the weight of established consensus did — but that doesn't mean I'm wrong about what the weight of established consensus actually is. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You use a lot of words to just keep repeating what you’ve already said. Are you just looking to have the last word or something? I get your stance, and I’ve said mine. I wasn’t talking about ATD as some “trump card”, I was lamenting that I wished this didn’t immediately become a deletion discussion. But it’s the case now so it doesn’t matter. Again, I’m done talking, let’s wait for the results. Rusted AutoParts 02:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails our standards for notability of films. Lots of failed projects, non-notable flops, etc. get minor coverage in the trade press, without thus becoming notable. If it is released, and gets some real coverage, then an article can be created. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fail the standards at all. It’s verifiably sourced, and has concluded filming, the core requirement for WP:NFF. Rusted AutoParts 23:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask if those who feel this isn’t warranting mainspace status yet to vote for it to be returned to draftspace. It’ll be a complete waste of time for me if all the time and work I put into assembling this article is tossed away just because it doesn’t have a title yet. Rusted AutoParts 00:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the film passes notability guidelines. Let's be honest the only reason this is being discussed is that it doesn't have a proper title, but that is not a reason to delete the article. As it passes NFF, it should remain - we'll get a title soon enough, and the page can be moved accordingly. Somethingwickedly (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I won’t bother to read the duel going on in the comments, but the fact is this is Too Soon. Point blank. Just because there are casting reports coming out doesn’t mean this is worth keeping right now. Nothing verifiable is known about this project and not one frame has been shot. Trillfendi (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: You should’ve read it then. Here’s shots from filming back in March last year. The film has been done filming for quite awhile. This vote worries me as it seems you didn’t even read the article in question. Rusted AutoParts 07:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I’m being ignored on this point. It had been filmed, this vote is for a completely inaccurate reason. Rusted AutoParts 07:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film has obviously been shot, a simple Google search shows pictures of Driver & Johansson filming, so does this mean every film article currently in production or due for release for this year has to be deleted until the day of release? Also all the sources of the casting are reliable. What's the point in deleting? Vmars22 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage of the film in reliable publications, such as The Hollywood Reporter. Moreover, despite what Trillfendi says, principal photography has begun (and indeed finished a year ago) with sources present supporting this. One argument from Softlavender is that it should be draftified as it does not have a title, but that seems a pretty tenuous argument to remove it from the mainspace. The project is from a well-known director and has a well-known cast, so overall I feel it is definitely notable enough to pass NFILM, and should be kept. Cindlevet (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2019 (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.