- 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 delete. -- Scott ( talk) 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Miss Virginia (film)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Miss Virginia (film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Generally, WP:NFILM suggests films which have not yet released are only notable enough for a dedicated article when their production is itself notable. The film's production appears to have received less than significant coverage; the articles used as sources generally either simply mention some of the cast and give a terse plot summary, or they discuss the woman the film is based on -- not the film directly. Two sources (in Deadline and Variety) contain verbatim copies of the same paragraph, which suggests they are copying existing press releases. — 0xf8e8 ( talk) 02:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- To address the issues being raised by 0xf8e8:
- 1. A film not yet released is notable when their production is itself notable.
- I believe that this film has attracted significant coverage as evidenced by the number of references used. Some of the sources, namely Variety and Deadline were questioned because of the impression that these included information taken from press release. Customarily, press releases are sources of information for journalists. Otherwise, no person or organization would bother writing and releasing these documents. Let us be clear: this article did not source from a press release but from independent sources you believe to be sourced from a press release. The reason why Wikipedia requires independent source is the need for editorial integrity. Editors of Variety and Deadline must have found the alleged press release information notable so that they published it in their respective digital platforms. Variety and Deadline are not affiliated with the producers of the film so that at least should address the independence variable, which is the main argument against the use of press release as reference.
- Also, in my view, the film production is notable because it is Aduba's first ever lead role in a feature film. [1]
- 2. What is significant coverage?
- Significant coverage according to the notability guideline "addresses the topic directly and in detail so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This article does not have original research. All information were taken from sources.
- 3. But some sources "either simply mention some of the cast and give a terse plot summary"
- According to the General notability guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Can we say that the reportage about the inclusion of new cast members or the citation of the plot summary, however terse, is trivial? The bulk of the upcoming film entries for 2019 published in the mainspace suffer from this issue. If we must nitpick about the notability of the production itself - that an entire news report must be devoted to the film's production - I would like to draw your attention to the Washing Post article cited, which reported Aduba shooting some scenes in Washington D.C.. [2]
- 4. Some sources discuss the woman the film is based on.
- Naturally, it will be discussed because that is where the film's narrative was taken from.
- Some relevant information from the Notability guideline, which I hope you will consider as well:
- Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.
- Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.
- OT: Sorry about the formatting of this reply. I am not that well-versed with the Wiki markup. Thanks! Darwin Naz ( talk) 11:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
References
- Comment Thank you for taking the time to comment. As mentioned your quote of
WP:SIGCOV, sources should address the topic directly and in detail. The sources used do not address the topic in detail; brief articles which announce casting choices for one among several other movies constitute
routine coverage that is not sufficient basis for an article. Per
WP:NEWSORG,
Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release.
. The press release I am specifically concerned about is this MPI press release from November of last year. The paragraph in both articles is quite literally identical to that press release; it is not simply a matter of my belief. Finally, "the production of the film must be itself notable" means that there should be significant coverage dealing with the production—one brief WaPo article which says "actress X was spotted filming here" is insufficient. Wrt existence of sources, I performed the normal checks as well as searching through Newsbank + other academic databases and found little which convinced me of notability. (Also see WP:MUSTBESOURCES; articles are kept because the existence of sources has been demonstrated, not postulated.) — 0xf8e8 ( talk) 01:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- As you have mentioned, "there should be significant coverage dealing with the production." And yet you are diminishing the value of the reportage of the casting announcement as routine coverage. Can this be considered coverage of the production process as well? Maybe you can cite an example from the list of the upcoming film entries for 2019 what information qualifies as significant coverage specifically for film production so we can learn something out of this. I was told by a helpful editor once that conversations are learning opportunities here. True, we can cite entries from the guidelines (we certainly have no shortage of such information) and I am sure they are sensible, but let us see an actual example. I am a little disappointed that your main concern was two sources considered "identical" as press releases and that you determined that the entire article has no merit and should be deleted because of these. Furthermore, news about the casting announcement was not used as the basis for this article. The article included information such as the plot, cast, filming progress and these information can be verified by other sources. Even this source you cited: WP:NEWSORG stipulated that even the reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). This is not to say that that the subject of this article is a rumor because it is currently in production. This article is not perfect and, again, the Wiki guideline stressed that "Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." Darwin Naz ( talk) 04:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for taking the time to comment. As mentioned your quote of
WP:SIGCOV, sources should address the topic directly and in detail. The sources used do not address the topic in detail; brief articles which announce casting choices for one among several other movies constitute
routine coverage that is not sufficient basis for an article. Per
WP:NEWSORG,
- Weak delete It doesn't meet notability guidelines right now, but it almost certainly will once it's released. Still, WP:CRYSTAL, this article shouldn't be in mainspace. signed, Rosguill talk 02:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been only one comment from an editor other than the nominator and article creator, so hoping a relist will draw more voices.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 23:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: There has been only one comment from an editor other than the nominator and article creator, so hoping a relist will draw more voices.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 23:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. This isn't an article about a notable -- by Wikipedia standards -- film, but a reheated press release for a project that's not even finished. -- Calton | Talk 03:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete The author of this article can try again once the film has established its notability, however. TH1980 ( talk) 02:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. -- Scott ( talk) 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Miss Virginia (film)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Miss Virginia (film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Generally, WP:NFILM suggests films which have not yet released are only notable enough for a dedicated article when their production is itself notable. The film's production appears to have received less than significant coverage; the articles used as sources generally either simply mention some of the cast and give a terse plot summary, or they discuss the woman the film is based on -- not the film directly. Two sources (in Deadline and Variety) contain verbatim copies of the same paragraph, which suggests they are copying existing press releases. — 0xf8e8 ( talk) 02:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- To address the issues being raised by 0xf8e8:
- 1. A film not yet released is notable when their production is itself notable.
- I believe that this film has attracted significant coverage as evidenced by the number of references used. Some of the sources, namely Variety and Deadline were questioned because of the impression that these included information taken from press release. Customarily, press releases are sources of information for journalists. Otherwise, no person or organization would bother writing and releasing these documents. Let us be clear: this article did not source from a press release but from independent sources you believe to be sourced from a press release. The reason why Wikipedia requires independent source is the need for editorial integrity. Editors of Variety and Deadline must have found the alleged press release information notable so that they published it in their respective digital platforms. Variety and Deadline are not affiliated with the producers of the film so that at least should address the independence variable, which is the main argument against the use of press release as reference.
- Also, in my view, the film production is notable because it is Aduba's first ever lead role in a feature film. [1]
- 2. What is significant coverage?
- Significant coverage according to the notability guideline "addresses the topic directly and in detail so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This article does not have original research. All information were taken from sources.
- 3. But some sources "either simply mention some of the cast and give a terse plot summary"
- According to the General notability guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Can we say that the reportage about the inclusion of new cast members or the citation of the plot summary, however terse, is trivial? The bulk of the upcoming film entries for 2019 published in the mainspace suffer from this issue. If we must nitpick about the notability of the production itself - that an entire news report must be devoted to the film's production - I would like to draw your attention to the Washing Post article cited, which reported Aduba shooting some scenes in Washington D.C.. [2]
- 4. Some sources discuss the woman the film is based on.
- Naturally, it will be discussed because that is where the film's narrative was taken from.
- Some relevant information from the Notability guideline, which I hope you will consider as well:
- Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.
- Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.
- OT: Sorry about the formatting of this reply. I am not that well-versed with the Wiki markup. Thanks! Darwin Naz ( talk) 11:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
References
- Comment Thank you for taking the time to comment. As mentioned your quote of
WP:SIGCOV, sources should address the topic directly and in detail. The sources used do not address the topic in detail; brief articles which announce casting choices for one among several other movies constitute
routine coverage that is not sufficient basis for an article. Per
WP:NEWSORG,
Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release.
. The press release I am specifically concerned about is this MPI press release from November of last year. The paragraph in both articles is quite literally identical to that press release; it is not simply a matter of my belief. Finally, "the production of the film must be itself notable" means that there should be significant coverage dealing with the production—one brief WaPo article which says "actress X was spotted filming here" is insufficient. Wrt existence of sources, I performed the normal checks as well as searching through Newsbank + other academic databases and found little which convinced me of notability. (Also see WP:MUSTBESOURCES; articles are kept because the existence of sources has been demonstrated, not postulated.) — 0xf8e8 ( talk) 01:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- As you have mentioned, "there should be significant coverage dealing with the production." And yet you are diminishing the value of the reportage of the casting announcement as routine coverage. Can this be considered coverage of the production process as well? Maybe you can cite an example from the list of the upcoming film entries for 2019 what information qualifies as significant coverage specifically for film production so we can learn something out of this. I was told by a helpful editor once that conversations are learning opportunities here. True, we can cite entries from the guidelines (we certainly have no shortage of such information) and I am sure they are sensible, but let us see an actual example. I am a little disappointed that your main concern was two sources considered "identical" as press releases and that you determined that the entire article has no merit and should be deleted because of these. Furthermore, news about the casting announcement was not used as the basis for this article. The article included information such as the plot, cast, filming progress and these information can be verified by other sources. Even this source you cited: WP:NEWSORG stipulated that even the reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). This is not to say that that the subject of this article is a rumor because it is currently in production. This article is not perfect and, again, the Wiki guideline stressed that "Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." Darwin Naz ( talk) 04:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for taking the time to comment. As mentioned your quote of
WP:SIGCOV, sources should address the topic directly and in detail. The sources used do not address the topic in detail; brief articles which announce casting choices for one among several other movies constitute
routine coverage that is not sufficient basis for an article. Per
WP:NEWSORG,
- Weak delete It doesn't meet notability guidelines right now, but it almost certainly will once it's released. Still, WP:CRYSTAL, this article shouldn't be in mainspace. signed, Rosguill talk 02:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been only one comment from an editor other than the nominator and article creator, so hoping a relist will draw more voices.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 23:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: There has been only one comment from an editor other than the nominator and article creator, so hoping a relist will draw more voices.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 23:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. This isn't an article about a notable -- by Wikipedia standards -- film, but a reheated press release for a project that's not even finished. -- Calton | Talk 03:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete The author of this article can try again once the film has established its notability, however. TH1980 ( talk) 02:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- 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.