This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Film This page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

After a long vacation of ten years, I am back.🙃 I have some questions regarding the current MOS consensus. What are the thoughts on having tables with box office data? Music track listings like this? Is this useful? These articles passed as GA back in 2011, so they obviously need updating. Thanks for any input. Mike Allen 15:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! May want to post this at WT:MOSFILM and not here at WT:NF. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I thought I was on that page. Too many tabs open. Mike Allen 21:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films only says that such films should not have their own articles, but does the same also apply to mentioning when the films rights to a given property have been acquired by a studio, as with this article on the rights to Scott Snyder's novel being acquried by 20th Century Studios? I think it does, the principle is the same (Wikipedia will be filled with loads of material on the acquistion rights to properties that ended up not getting produced), but I'd like to hear what others here have to say. Nightscream (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to mention in some cases — for instance, it's perfectly appropriate for an article about a writer and/or their novel to mention (if properly sourced) that the book has been optioned for development as a film, and it's perfectly acceptable for an actor's article to mention (if properly sourced) that they've been cast in a film that's in the production pipeline. Those mentions just don't have to preemptively redlink to a presumed future title for the film yet, and they certainly don't need to be given WP:UNDUE weight (such as by allowing the entire article to get bloated out with tons of content about the future film and its production), but it's perfectly fine to mention. And then if the film fails to ever materialize at all, we can just rewrite it for past tense or yank it out of the article entirely, depending on context. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to propose that we beef up what this notability criterion says about notability on the basis of awards. At present, the criterion says solely that "the film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking", and then uses a footnote to vague out ("Standards have not been defined...") on the question of what constitutes a "major award" — with the result that this criterion has often been incorrectly interpreted to mean that any film award that exists at all confers an automatic notability pass regardless of the quality of sourcing that is or isn't used to support the "majorness" of the award.

The problem, of course, is that not all film awards are actually created equal. Some awards are more "major" and notability-making than other awards, some film festivals are more "major" and notability-making than other film festivals, and on and so forth. There exists, for example, a large network of fake "film festivals" that do not actually screen films for the general public at all, but in fact exist solely as vanity award mills, allowing any filmmaker to purchase an "award" so that they can claim to have won film festival awards in their marketing materials, as well as many real local or regional film festivals and regional film organizations which present real awards that still aren't necessarily always of broad national or international significance. (There have, for example, been attempts to claim that even just winning "Best Local Film" at the local film festival in a filmmaker's own hometown is a notability clinch for a film even if it's never had a single titch of beyond-hometown distribution or coverage at all. That didn't work, thankfully, but it has been attempted.)

Standards for this, in a nutshell, actually have been defined at AFD, and NFILM just hasn't caught up with codifying them yet. Essentially, a film is not automatically notable enough to have a Wikipedia article just because the body text has the word "award" in it. Notability on the basis of awards, rather, hinges on the degree to which the claim can or cannot be reliably sourced to GNG-worthy third-party coverage about the award presentation in media outlets or books independent of the claims. This is not solely a question of whether the award or festival has a Wikipedia article or not, as there may be film awards and festivals that have articles but probably should not, and film awards and festivals that do not have articles yet but probably should.

As a basis to start discussion, I would propose that the following types of awards indeed should be, and in fact generally are, accepted as notable awards:

• top-level national film awards that receive media coverage, such as the Academy Awards, the Canadian Screen Awards, the BAFTAs or the César Awards,
• significant regional or special interest film awards that receive media coverage, such as the Independent Spirit Awards or the Prix Iris,
• major nationally or internationally prominent film festivals that receive media coverage, such as Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Sundance or Toronto,
• significant craft guild awards that receive media coverage, such as the Screen Actors Guild Awards,
• film critics association awards that receive media coverage, such as the Toronto Film Critics Association and the Los Angeles Film Critics Association.

Awards presented at film festivals of more local or regional prominence, whose coverage is largely limited to their own local area, might not necessarily secure the notability of a film all by themselves if that's the only notability claim being made; however, a film that wins an award in this tier of film festivals will very often have other legitimate notability claims as well, so it's appropriate for awards of this type to be mentioned in film articles so long as they're properly sourced. Conversely, a film award should not confer notability on its winners at all if reliable source media coverage about the award presentation does not exist, such that you have to rely on the film studio's own self-published marketing materials, the award's own self-published press releases about itself, social networking posts or YouTube video clips of the award presentation to source the claim. And by the same token, an award shouldn't confer notability just because it seems to serve a similar purpose to another award, but rather the depth of media coverage that the award does or doesn't actually get should still be the determinant. For example, Canada's Joey Awards are not a notability-making award just because they're presented to young actors and thus have a similar "mandate" to the American Young Artist Awards, because they don't get the coverage that the Young Artist Awards get.

Similarly, films are able to claim notability on the basis of nominations for awards, but this is still vulnerable to misinterpretation and abuse. Generally, award nominations are valid notability claims if the award curates and releases a shortlist of finalists between the "consideration of all eligible submissions" and "announcement of the final winner" phases, but not if the film is an automatic "nominee" just by virtue of its presence at the event. For example, every feature film that screens at the Toronto International Film Festival is inherently a "nominee" for the People's Choice Award, so being a "nominee" for that award is not a meaningful or notability-boosting statement in and of itself (but boy, do editors still try it anyway) — whereas the Academy Awards release a shortlist of five finalists per category between the submission deadline and the announcement of the winner at the ceremony, so being an Oscar nominee is a more significant distinction. Conversely, TIFF's Platform Prize, a special award reserved for the eight to twelve films playing in one specific program whose titles were curated for the express purpose of competing for that award, has a stronger basis for being claimed as a noteworthy nomination. As with award wins, this should properly depend on the ability to reliably source, in references independent of content self-published by the awards committee, that a shortlist of nominees was announced somewhere between the "everything's a potential nominee" and "we know the winner now" phases of the process.

Which is admittedly a lot of words to say that essentially what I'm proposing here is that we much more clearly define a "major" award as one that can be shown to garner reliable source coverage about it in sources independent of itself — which, when you get right down to it, is basically already the rule that's typically applied when "award-winning" films go to AFD (films that claim notability on the basis of unsourced or primary sourced awards from minor film festivals routinely get thrown in the trash compactor, for example), and just hasn't been codified as such here yet. So that's what I'm putting forward for discussion, and would welcome any input. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording states,

"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."

which is a bit ambiguous, and is being used by editors to mass-delete articles of unreleased films that are currently filming or in post-production. In this particular case, the article was moved to drafts even though it had more "keep" votes.

Could the text provide us with an exact criteria as to what would make such films notable, since the "notability" criteria for released and unreleased films won't be the same, as analysis/themes/reviews of unreleased films will obviously not be available until release. Furthermore, production details are almost always kept under wraps until the film is about to release, to prevent plot leaks. So what exactly would make the production notable? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk2.0 There is one proposal above Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Proposing addition of more language regarding pre-release notability to NFF section — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And an RFC ended with no change :/ Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#RfC: Should we replace the NFF policy with new text? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, they seem to be using that as definitive policy to draftify articles such as this. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The AfC outcome is not wrong here. Editors sometimes mistakenly believe NFF mandates film articles to exist in the mainspace just because principal photography or final voice recording has begun, but this is not a requirement. WP:GNG should be used to determine whether a film is notable, in addition to satisfying the NFF criteria. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So kindly highlight exact points that make unreleased films notable (as the wordings at both WP:NFFF WP:GNG are not definitive), so that this charade of deletion requests can be done away with. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong, but I think there's a fair amount of confusion as to what is considered significant, GNG-establishing coverage pre-release. My personal understanding was that there needs to be real analysis or clearly independent description of the production/film, but was voted down when I proposed making that a formal part of the guideline above. Results like the AfDs pointed to in this discussion, however, seem to align with my view. We could also draw the line elsewhere, e.g. saying that sober announcements of casting decisions in Variety are significant coverage but ebullient puff prose or interviews with actors in Times of India is not, but I think that such decisions would likely end up strongly reinforcing systemic bias due to the fact that pre-release film press in much of the world outside of North America almost always falls into the latter category. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a film should meet this criteria (all three) before an article is added to mainspace:

• Must have completed principal photography or voice recording
• Must have a distributor
• Must have a scheduled release date

Mike Allen 03:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a reasonable standard for 99% of films, and just needs a carveout for the few films whose production is so notorious that it clearly meets GNG despite failure to meet these criteria. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does anything have to be "notorious" or negative to warrant an article? Filming can be smooth and a wonderful, happy experience for all and still have its own article. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't interpret Rosguill's note to mean the film must be notorious in some negative sense, like Rust, just that a wonderful, happy experience for all doesn't get the same press that would put it above the criteria Mike has proposed. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 14:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why I feel standard, non-fluffy coverage of casting/filming/development from high-quality sources should suffice. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, my point was that Mike Allen's proposed criteria could be interpreted as saying that only films that have completed filming (etc.) get articles. While this is a reasonable standard for most films, there are occasionally films whose production is notable enough to merit an article despite falling short of these criteria (see List of abandoned and unfinished films for examples, and note how few of the blue links point to standalone articles about the unfinished film; amusingly, the example I had in mind of a notorious unfinished film, Dune (Jodorowsky film) doesn't have an independent article) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should have clarified. There are exceptions with productions that have received significant wide spread coverage in reliable sources but never released. See Midnight Rider, Rust and Batgirl. Mike Allen 16:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger 3 seemed to meet all the criteria for WP:NFF, yet it was deleted. Is being the third in the already popular Tiger franchise not enough to denote its notability? Having one of the three Khans in the lead and another in a cameo not enough? Being part of the YRF Spy Universe (one of India's equivalents to the Marvel Cinematic Universe) is not enough? I don't want to sound harsh or defiant, but what could anyone have done to prevent its deletion? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that this recent addition to NFILM stemmed from WT:FILM#Useless superhero character articles. The discussion, which only lasted 2 weeks and had limited participation, dropped the idea of adding to NFILM, but it was ultimately added anyway. The latest discussion is at WT:FILM#Survey aftermath. Adding a searchable note here for future reference. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that ProductionList.com is a site where, similar to imdb, anyone can register an account and submit production information. It does not appear to have editorial oversight. I ask because I corrected a simple error in a reference on The Passion of the Christ: Resurrection, and reading the references further, I noticed that there do not appear to be any reliable sources that state principal photography has commenced. There's a handful that predict that principal photography would commence in April 2023, but nothing after that. ProductionList.com looks like it's being used as such a source, which is why I'm asking. It would be surprising to me if a sequel to a film that had such a high profile had started shooting and not one film news site had reported on it, which is why I'm suspicious of the bare entry at [1]. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that even that webpage was last updated on 02/27/2023. So I don't believe that in this case, the source qualifies as reliable regarding the start of production in any way. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask, what is the point of having WP:NFF if it's not enforced? There appear to be over 700 articles on unreleased films, if Category:Upcoming films and its sub-cats can be believed, some not being planned for release until 2026. I can move such articles to draft space when I come across them while doing New Pages Patrol; they will be moved back to mainspace. I can nominate such films for deletion, again quoting WP:NFF, but every time, there will be an AfD with exactly the same arguments - "it's being released soon, so why delete it?"; "there are sources in the article"; "the production company has its own article therefore it's a notable production", and so on. Could we either make WP:NFF stronger and more plainly worded; or just scrap it entirely, and let WP:GNG and WP:NFILM apply? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent question, Bastun, one I'd love to see resolved here. While I don't think the text is worded in an unclear way, I would like to see the community actually enforce it. (The same problem exists with musical works. "The album will be released soon, anyway..." or, worse, "If we delete it, somebody will just recreate it anyway...")

I would oppose scrapping WP:NFF, but if the consensus is to not enforce it, it's better to just remove the imaginary guideline. Unfortunately, I'm not a WP:FILM regular (or even a WP:N regular), so my preferences may not count for much. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just came here because I was confused at the conflicting guideline - first part implies it's fine if filming has started, last says almost definitively no unless there is a release, but articles for films that are going to be released ages from now have existed on Wikipedia since the dawn of time, lol. Personally, I think that we should go with the former: if filming has commenced, confirmed by reliable, secondary sources, it can have an article. It is a very weak 'guideline' as it is and WP:NFILM and WP:GNG should take priority here. Like, Shrek 5, with all its sources, got sent to the gulag for not having been publicly released yet - despite meeting GNG, having a teaser out, and production being the definition of notable. jolielover♥talk 15:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok my bad I just saw this is from 2024, I thought it was from about a week ago jolielover♥talk 15:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NFF is fine as long as there are reasonably IAR-style allowances for films not yet in production (and that may never reach production) of which considerable material for notability has been met, and either due to topic or size of the existing topic, coverage doesn't readily fit into an existing article. The bulk of films don't have that info outside of initial greenlights and casting news, which is not sufficient to sustain most articles from a notability standpoint, so we absolutely need NFF for that. But cases like Gambit (unproduced film) or Akira (live action film) where the topic of the planned film clearly meets GNG-style notability guidelines, NFF should not be pushed on those. Masem (t) 15:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, however, has not gone away. The film industry has very good publicists, whose job is to create publicity about films before they are released, and it's naive to think they're not using Wikipedia. We also have people who genuinely believe that up-coming films are so exciting that people need to know about them before they happen - avid fans of the film industry - which isn't really in keeping with Wikipedia's purpose. I'm concerned that the film publicity industry is taking advantage of Wikipedia's processes. By creating pages a very short time before the film is released, they know that the page will exist through all the period it's critical for advertising purposes, because it can't be draftified multiple times, and AfD can be strung along for at least a week. I wonder whether we need a speedy-draftification strategy similar to speedy-deletion? There really should be proper independent sourcing before we have articles. Elemimele (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NFF should neither override the GNG, but also should make sure that NCORP type promotion is avoided. Clearly we don't want avid fan-like sourcing to be the reason to keep a pre production film article, but at the same time if a Variety or THR article goes in depth on the concept and early development of the pre production, that's good reasons to keep. Most of the time we don't have that, and NFF absolutely can be used to prevent avid fan gushing on a film that's yet to hit production, but it should never be used as an absolute. Masem (t) 14:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I agree that PR teams are absolutely using Wikipedia to push their films and cast names. This is occurring way more than it did over 10 years ago. Focus Features comes to mind immediately. They are open about it too. Mike Allen 17:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Elemimele stated above, the problem, however, has not gone away.. I have been involved in AfDs (two of which have "anticipated" release dates in 2027 - nothing official), where people claiming that starting of filming passes WP:NFF. I disagree. Some have stated WP:GNG applies because of the number of sources, despite those sources all being churnalism based on what the film studio wants the press to say about it. I also disagree as those sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Pinging ( @Elemimele, MikeAllen, Masem, JohnFromPinckney, Bastun, and Jolielover:) everyone involved in the discussion so far to see if there is a consensus to remove the guideline or somehow ensure it is enforced. I understand that we have the ability to WP:IAR, but having a guideline that is ignored on a regular basis doesn't make much sense. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you sent any of those to AFD? If NFF is not being held up at AFD, that would be an issue, but if the situation is just editors making articles w/o respecting NFF and there's been no challenge to that, we can't say NFF is not working. Masem (t) 13:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My irritation is when film publicists take advantage of the relatively slow process of AfD. Regardless of what guidelines we have in NFF, they get a free week's publicity, probably two weeks if there's no consensus after the first week, which is a potential abuse of the system. I'd like to see a speedy criterion, analogous to speedy deletion of promotional material, where unreleased films can be tagged for immediate removal to draft space (the moving admin can refuse if there's a sign of genuine sourcing, for example a vast scandal about the filming, thus requiring community debate). Elemimele (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what I am dealing with is 100% that. In fact, they get more as I can show you a dozen sock farms related to the industry who bludgeon these pages into the mainspace. This has mainly been in the Indian and Pakistan related film space. Even deleted pages or draftified pages get moved back within a few weeks despite the AfD. Then, there is the AfD gaming where socks votestack and not all of them are caught immediately. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I send a lot to AfD over NFF. It is not necessarily a case of the closer casting a supervote, it is more of editors with an WP:IAR vote or commenting "filming has started" or "there is a lot of press" with their keep votes. There is also a lot of misinterpretation (my opinion) that not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles translated to "if principal photography has started then it is notable." I believe closers mainly go with the majority opinions or interpretation, but those opinions and interpretations are not inline with the guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we need two things: one is to actually enforce NFF. The second is that we need more clarification on what constitutes coverage of the production. As CNMall41 has said, I've seen articles get kept based on a handful of announcements based on the same press release and a single source saying that filming has commenced. I'm not talking about the MCU type coverage, but rather one where the studio has released maybe 1-3 press releases and every news outlet is saying the exact same thing. Where the coverage is basically "This Film was announced, Jane Smith is going to direct and it will star X, Y, and Z" with maybe a bit of mention of the producers and/or author, if it's based on something. It's the type of thing that, if the film were to never release, the article would obviously fail NFILM.

I think it needs to be made clear that the production coverage has to have some heft to it, like mention of where they're filming, when it is going to take place. Cast/crew talking about the creative process, that sort of thing. Brief, cursory announcements shouldn't cut it here, not when it comes to NFF. I think a good rule of thumb is that if you can sum up the production in 1-3 sentences like I have above, then it's probably not going to pass NFF. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Run of the mill discussion is not something that makes a production notable. I believe some are saying that since there is a lot of press (press based on churnalism by the way), then it meets GNG despite those sources being PRIMARYNEWS. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to link a few examples within NFF. I personally tend to think of those lines as a carveout for films like Something's Got to Give and Don Quixote (unfinished film), a kind of reminder that there will be common-sense exceptions where NFF shouldn't get in the way of GNG -- not something that applies in ordinary cases. Another way to put that is that the production itself would have to be notable for being different from other productions in some obviously very interesting way. Otherwise, draftspace is the perfect place to collect little details about when and where filming is happening, until the film either releases (and gets reviews) or goes up in flame (and gets notable coverage as a failure). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn:, the examples you provide I think are common sense keeps as they have sustained coverage. Most of what I see is newer films and the studios using Wikipedia in an attempt to promote them. The determination of what constitutes NFF or when it applies has been all over the board. For instance, this discussion started in June 2025 for a January 2026 film resulted in a keep, this discussion started in August 2025 for a November 2025 film resulted in draftification (note, I later approved this out of draft once it did meet NFF), this discussion from October 2025 for an unknown 2026 release (anticipated later 2026) resulted in no consensus. And, here is a June 2025 discussion for an October release that resulted in no consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not link an ongoing discussion for fear of CANVASsing, but it was draftified after discussion in April, moved back to mainspace and back up for deletion, with an unknown anticipated release date in 2027. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point may have been unclear -- I agree that my examples are common sense keeps, and I suggested linking them within NFF to push towards a stronger interpretation of NFF. That is, by comparison, one could (hopefully) see that none of the films you just linked merited an exception to NFF. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much clearer.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If reliable sources are reporting on details of a film coming together, and the topic has crossed the threshold of starting filming, which means an extremely high likelihood of being released, it is likely notable. We should not shun reliable sources' reporting just because there is some apparent thinking that such sources are being manipulated by publicists. The sources should themselves be judged on their own reliability. These sources, if reliable, determine the topic being worthy of note. In other words, the world at large has paid attention. That tends to happen if the related people or subject matter have some notability of their own. And whatever wiki articles we have should be free of WP:PROMO and be a boring article with no MOS:PUFFERY. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources, manipulated or not, are churning out content. That is their job. They take announcements, rewrite them somewhat for clicks, then post them without any independent coverage. So, it is not that there is coverage in reliable sources...it is that the coverage is basically from the studios. Not all articles published in a reliable source are reliable. I mean, if you read some of the sources I cited in the deletion discussions linked above, you will see there dozens of articles in reliable sources, but if you look at those sources you will see that the majority are published at the same time based on churnalism. That is not okay. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are supposed to be independent of the subject, otherwise they are not reliable. So I don't understand the part about "post them without any independent coverage" because reliable sources are supposed to be independent already. You said, "Not all articles published in a reliable source are reliable," but we are supposed to treat reliable sources as having reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. To go over an example, is this "just" churnalism? WP:SUSTAINED says churnalism is "reproductions or close paraphrasing of press releases", but that article isn't either, and it even highlights the negative recent past of the franchise, which is something a studio would not do. Is that still churnalism for you? What isn't churnalism, that would be acceptable? Erik (talk | contrib) 20:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that some publications or outlets are considered reliable, but not all articles published in those outlets are independent or reliable. A great example is WP:FORBESOCN which are articles published on a reliable outlet but they are not considered reliable. If you look at WP:NEWSORGINDIA where most of these sources fall under, you will see that reliable publications print these articles but not all of the articles are reliable. So, the source publication may be reliable, but the individual source is not always reliable and this case the majority are not because they are not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem though is that principal photography isn't a guarantee of notability. It's not even a guarantee that a film will actually release, as it's not impossible for a film to get cancelled after some principal photography or for a completed film to get shelved indefinitely for one reason or another. Even if the film does release, that's still not a guarantee that it'll get reviews or other coverage.

I'm going to use an active AfD as a bit of an example: Legacy (upcoming film). The coverage for this is incredibly light, as only a handful of outlets have covered the film. What coverage does exist falls into the realm of "single press release", meaning that outlets are ultimately basing their coverage on a single press release, either because they directly received the press release or because they wrote something based on what one of the other outlets wrote. Now imagine it's a month later and we have a single source stating that principal has begun.

If we were to apply NFILM, the movie clearly fails notability guidelines. However there are people who will actively argue that the movie passes NFF, like the notability guidelines for unreleased films are completely divorced from NFILM. Their arguments are usually that the film will undoubtedly gain coverage once it releases, especially if the movie involves notable people. At the same time, we can't guarantee the movie's release or future notability. I mean, we actually had people arguing for a keep at the recent AfD for The Hello Kitty Movie, despite no confirmation that PP or animation had begun - all based on the potential for future notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the start of filming is not a guarantee, but it does make completion of a tangible work a much stronger certainty. WP:CRYSTAL says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Before the start of filming happens, we cannot say that a film is "almost certain to take place". That's why we have WP:NFF even if WP:GNG is met. WP:NFF isn't supposed to override WP:GNG, it's supposed to restrict it because of the pre-filming coverage that can accumulate even if there is no near-guarantee of a film. No event is guaranteed in the world; an asteroid could hit us tomorrow.

Regarding Legacy, I agree that the coverage is too lacking (basically lacking multiple sources and WP:SUSTAINED coverage) to pass WP:GNG, so WP:NFF is irrelevant. Maybe we need to frame it better that if accumulated coverage is too limiting, it can be merged elsewhere, like in this case to the director's article. Basically WP:PAGEDECIDE, "Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." But then what kind of, and how much, pre-release coverage is enough for a standalone article? WP:CRYSTAL does say. "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." We see a hint of notability now and likely more in the course of time, then what is the tipping point for a standalone article to be warranted?

As for The Hello Kitty Movie, I think that shows we need to clarify that both WP:GNG and WP:NFF need to be passed, WP:GNG especially first. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In a way I think this all looks at it the wrong way. The issue isn't one of some special notability rule based on where a film is in its production lifecycle, but the core question of what an article is about. If an article is about a film, it needs to meet GNG based on sources about the film qua film. If the film has not been completed yet, there cannot be coverage of the film qua film. There may be coverage of the production, but productions get far less coverage, and most of the coverage they do get is, as people have said, purely churnalism. Productions become notable in their own right under two main sets of circumstances: when the film has a lot of buzz and there's actual in-depth journalism on what the production looks like, or when the production fails very publicly and there's coverage of the failure. To me what NFF really is trying to say is: If you want to write an article on a film, but the film doesn't actually exist yet, the production itself needs to pass GNG, because the film by definition can't. The fact that production-based notability often coincides with the start of principal photography is a useful observation, but is neither necessary nor sufficient for the production passing GNG. (The Many Faces of Jesus never even hired a crew, but got enough coverage for me to GA it; conversely a film entering principal photography with zero fanfare doesn't get the production anywhere closer to GNG.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know if it helps to say, but the point of the start of filming being a threshold for a standalone article is the near-certainty that a film will be produced. The guidelines stem in the 2000s and 2010s where there were a lot of development and casting announcements for films that never got off the ground. At that time, there was a strong tendency for articles to be created right away with such announcements as covered by reliable sources. Even worse, there is almost never any indication if something is happening or not. Creating and enforcing the guidelines put a big stop to that and limited pre-filming coverage to broader articles' sections or to draftspace pages.

  We can accumulate coverage about a film's development and casting, but it is encyclopedically marginal if there is no tangible work that results. Yet when a work is actively made and ultimately released, that coverage has more weight. To cite an example, The Winter of Frankie Machine § Film adaptation is coverage relegated to a section in the book's article. If a film ever comes to be, that coverage would be part of the development history in the film article.

  It's ultimately more about the technicality of accumulating that sustained coverage of an upcoming work and what to do with that on this encyclopedia. I worry that there is some thinking that to even write about an upcoming film is inherently promotional. That should not be a deletion-driven problem but an improvement-through-editing problem. Articles can exist but should not have a promotional tone. We are disinterestedly summarizing the reliably sourced coveage of the details of the upcoming film. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess I partly disagree. The importance of the start of filming isn't that the film is probably happening; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The importance is that usually that correlates with enough coverage for the production to be notable. If the production doesn't have enough coverage to be notable itself, and the film doesn't exist yet (even in an unpublished state), then there shouldn't be an article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that there needs to be enough accumulated coverage for the topic to be notable. To clarify, the start-of-filming threshold was purposely in line with WP:CRYSTAL, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred... Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." That "almost certain" is what the guidelines were based on. Before the start of filming, the film is not "almost certain" to be made. Again, in addition to this, I agree there should be significant coverage from reliable sources about the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Re-reading the discussion, it seems like a big complaint has to do with upcoming Indian films. The upcoming-film guidelines were written based on Western-world media, like reliable sources covering a film's development have been major newspapers like The New York Times and Los Angeles Times or trade papers like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. Do we need to add clarifications for the Indian film industry? Like are there sources that are not reliable like the aforementioned sources? I see a couple of thoughts about "churnalism" that has no detailed guidance beyond a mention at WP:NEWSORG. Should that be based on the source or the specific content? If the latter, just how should it be assessed if it's written in their own words? Erik (talk | contrib) 17:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has anything to do with Western-world media. Indian films seem to actually get MORE coverage of upcoming releases than films in the West and I would even argue that Bollywood is bigger as it produces more films annually. So it is not that there are no sources, it is that they are WP:CHURNALISM, WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and you can also throw in WP:NEWSORGINDIA. So, the films are covered in the media, but not independently. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Personally, I think we should do away with WP:NFF and simply follow WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTPROMO. If a film hasn't been viewed and isn't reviewed we shouldn't have an article on it. Period. Films become notable once they have been seen, otherwise we are simply acting as a promotional website to market the film.4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CRYSTAL says, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred... Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." It also points to WP:NFF. Also, WP:NOTPROMO says, "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." That is doable through editing. An article about an upcoming film is not inherently inappropriate by policy. It needs objective substance about the topic. That is more about what sources and what coverage and what details count toward doing that. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. WP:PRODUCT applies here as well. This isn't an event but a commercial product with real world money at stake. This is the only type of commercial product on the encyclopedia that hasn't been given the WP:ORG scrutiny. We need to stop looking at this as a benign thing, and see it for what it is and that is using wikipedia for financial gain. We shouldn't be writing on commercial products before they hit the market. This needs to be treated like any other commercial product because of inherent financial WP:COI.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a film can be a product, but it is not only a product. It is also an event, and can be a work of art. Reading WP:PRODUCT, why would "sustained coverage from reliable sources" not count toward an upcoming film's article? There can be a wide range of coverage, from none to just one source to multiple sources. I don't see anything else that applies that isn't already covered, like merging to a broader context if the coverage is too limited.

As for your claim of all upcoming film articles being malignant and made only by people for financial gain, that's an extreme claim that needs significant evidence. No doubt that some articles can be that way, but details about upcoming films can get a lot of coverage from various reliable sources, and editors who follow that coverage compile that. It's totally feasible to figure out a measured way of writing up a proper article of any upcoming topic that is objective and unbiased and free of puffery. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No films are not events. Film festivals are events. Film screenings are events, but the film itself is a reproducible media object that extends through time. It isn't tied to a single moment. Films are works of art (although artistic value is subjective and not all films claim to be art in the same way not all books are art/literature), but like other works of art they aren't notable until they are seen and reviewed. We don't write articles on paintings before people have viewed them. We don't write articles on novels until people have read them and reviewed them etc. I note that the key factor for art in any other medium in regards to its encyclopedic value is critical reception and/or engagement in academic literature. Our approach to film should be the same, because frankly its human response to engaging with a work of art and not its mere existence that is a basis for its encyclopedic notability. Coverage of films during production are frankly a part of the economic promotional engine for the media industry. It's done to hype up excitement in order to sell tickets. Independent critical reception on the other hand doesn't have a financial motive. Note too that the media covering production is often owned by the same gigantic corporation umbrella that makes or markets the film. (for example ABC news covering production of a Disney film or a newspaper owned by Disney writing on production of a Disney film). The press itself is often owned by the same company that owns the company making the film. This is typical. 4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is well put and persuades me that a much stricter guideline would be valuable. I work more often on book articles where there are increasingly things like “a press release about a book cover reveal” being used as attempted coverage, but WP:NBOOK makes it easy to disregard those sources because they are not about the book (which doesn’t exist yet)—- incubating in draftspace until release and reviews is the right solution there and sounds like the right solution for films too. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really think we just need stronger wording that says sources based on press releases do not count towards notability. Films that have not been released can be notable but they must have independent coverage about the production being notable. People voting in AfD discussions do not seem to understand that churnalism is not independent coverage. Maybe something similar to CRYSTAL that says, "All articles about upcoming films must be supported by independent sources, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the film had already been released." Otherwise, if we keep finding films notable based on the churnalism, I will double down on the statement by 4meter4 that "we are simply acting as a promotional website to market the film."--CNMall41 (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: Meh. I think it would be far better to just make every article wait until after it has been released to the public (whether its streaming, in theatres, or DVD, etc.) It's a much fairer and objective way to handle film articles, and would stop all the bickering at AFD that is a huge time suck because it removes ambiguity. Further, this forces articles to go live at the time critical coverage emerges. That is a good thing not a bad thing (particularly because film articles can't run on the main page at something like WP:DYK if they haven't come out yet; that's a hard rule which means new films never get featured on the main page). It also prevents WP:NOTPROMO/WP:CRYSTAL issues. It's a win all around. There isn't a plus side to allowing articles to be written earlier as far as I can see, because making people wait isn't going to stop these article from being created and the sourcing is generally better after a film comes out. People can still get them ready in draft or user space and just move them to article space on the day they are released. They'd be able to submit to DYK at that point as well which would be a nice change from the current culture of film article creation.4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the proposal, I would support it. I think there may be a fight with the WP:GNG crowd though. Again, I would support the proposal but not sure it would get enough support to be implemented. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by the GNG crowd? — HTGS (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of users who will often vote to keep a page, saying that there is significant coverage in reliable sources (ignoring that the coverage is churnalism). The use that argument to ignore NFF. I feel that having a guideline saying that film is not notable until released will be fought by those who support that contention, citing GNG as the reason.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So would the proposal be to replace WP:NFF with something like the following?

No "future" films are eligible for NFILM. This restriction applies to films at any stage before release, whether they have been announced, begun principal photography, or begun post-production. At these stages, some sources may begin to cover the film's production, but coverage of the production does not constitute coverage of the film itself. Information on the production might be included in articles about the film's subject material, if available, and the film article can be incubated in draftspace until it is released.

In rare circumstances, the failed production of a film might be notable. In these exceptional cases, such as The Many Faces of Jesus or Something's Gotta Give, the unfinished film must meet the general notability guideline.

It might be worth also adding some of the logic, like, As a work of art, a film cannot be notable until it exists. or Sources cannot provide significant coverage of the film itself until their authors have had a chance to see it.

I don't work on film articles very often so I'm not the right person to start an RfC, but that would be the right next step to gain consensus for this kind of major refactor of the notability guideline. Like CNMall41, I am not sure how many would agree, but I would personally support this kind of change -- and a broader discussion would be the way to find out what the broader community thinks. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we can get some wording together that a few agree on, I will gladly start the RfC. Here is another reason why. This AfD was just closed as draftify, despite the production apparently being notable enough for its own Wikipedia page here. This is the opposite end of the spectrum of NFF. If the production is notable, then why was it draftified? Yet this AfD for another film was kept despite anyone giving a valid reason for why the production is notable other than it receiving coverage (the churnalism coverage which some say accounts for WP:GNG). --CNMall41 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So with the guideline, would the prospective article be called "Production of (film title)" with the article getting moved to (film title) after the movie is released? Or would this be a situation where the production could actually have its own article and the film's would be separate? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: I would say Future film articles are not allowed on wikipedia because they fail WP:NOTPROMO. Wikipedia does not allow articles on future films because the platform has an invested interest in not being used as a marketing tool for future products. In rare circumstances films that failed in production and were never released may be considered notable if it is clear in reliable sources that the film will not be completed, and the film otherwise passes WP:GNG. Films still in production and with a likely chance of making it to market cannot have an article until they are released to the public.4meter4 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a film-level problem. There should be a RFC at WP:CRYSTAL to determine which topics can be upcoming and to what degree, to see if WP:CRYSTAL needs to be refined further. We don't just have films, we have TV series, we have books, we have upcoming physical events of all kinds. An outright ban on anything upcoming is inappropriate. Films are not special, as all upcoming topics can be claimed to be promotional. Erik (talk | contrib) 01:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could start a RFC. I’m not going to lie, I’m curious to see what the consensus would be. Mike Allen 17:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same, but I can’t really see it going anywhere. The problem—by the sound of it—isn’t NFF, it’s a whole bunch of other issues around rotten AFDs, enforcement of NFF, ignoring standards of WP:SIGCOV and (possibly) the promotional industry built around certain films. — HTGS (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is in fact the problem (rotten AfDs). Not sure how to enforce it other than arguing to the point of exhaustion in those AfDs, which does not seem to work. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing AfDs to relevant fora could be a solution. Either here or at the Wikiproject. Possibly a bit close to WP:CANVASSING for some, but they do it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page). If it’s really the activity of a few dedicated bad actors, then just making their efforts harder for a while would probably dissuade them. — HTGS (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently this which shows all films in deletion discussions so posting that here would not necessarily be considered canvassing. I would be glad to point out specific ones but that may be crossing the line. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already refined WP:NFF to center WP:GNG that needs to be passed, where its later mention before was only incidental and likely more ignored in obsessive favor of a start-of-filming threshold as if that's the only thing that matters. Centering WP:GNG should help, and we need actual criteria to determine what an upcoming film's article warrants to be standalone. Maybe something like how WP:ASSESS has examples of different classes, like a "not enough" example vs. an "enough" example for a relevant amount of content for an upcoming film article. But I don't know if that matters for editors here who are 100% against any upcoming film article. Erik (talk | contrib) 01:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The refining helps clarify, but I don't think it will deter the voters who believe that churnalised press releases can be used to establish WP:GNG. On the other hand, I don't think a hardline "no page until released" is a solution either. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with that. I don't think "none until released" is a solution here because that would mean that we wouldn't have pages on say, Spider-Man: Brand New Day, a film that would pass GNG even if everything came crashing down tomorrow and it never released ala BatGirl, which would also then fail to have an article.

At the same time, the churnalism is really, really bad with NFF. Indian films aren't the sole offenders, but they do appear to be the most easily visible. I won't name the AfD, but there's one I recently participated in where I'm not even certain that all of the sources on the article are even usable and people are arguing for it to be kept. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good test. Typical of the bludgeoning that happens from SPAs and IPs (some likey UPE and/or SOCKs) for a film that fails WP:NFF. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we are turning a corner and getting NFF back on track where it was intended. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good chunk of it is going to be just raising awareness. There are a lot of people who still treat NFF like separate criteria where the commencement of principal photography is notability.

I would recommend writing a supplementary essay about NFF, explaining it a bit more clearly and the type of sourcing that would be needed. The difficult part is going to be trying to explain the difference between a routine announcement based on a press release (churnalism) and an actual article. So like press release based article about a new cast member versus an article that discusses an actor announcement. It sounds like it should be easy, but the difference is not always clear. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see where the consensus to remove "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" is. It was removed as redundant, but this is distinct from the first portion of NFF(that a film have commenced principle photography). That line seems to be a minimum threshold, a floor, to merit an article, not a ticket to an article by itself. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think to some degree there are films which are notable pre-release, but not because the production itself is notable. The Odyssey (2026 film) would be an easy example (really anything Nolan has done in the last ten years). But of course these should be the exception, and not the norm. — HTGS (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  To be specific, are you arguing that Nolan is so historically significant that any of his works (released or not) would be considered noteworthy? In other words, that WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply?

  The catch with this criteria is that if the person was at that level of historical significance, then coverage will naturally exist. So in this situation, there really isn't going to be a question about the production being notable because of course there will be media outlets and other RS falling all over themselves to cover it. It's basically meant to cover those situations where it's a certainty that coverage exists, it just may not be as easily discovered online. Arguing that someone is at this level of notability can be kind of difficult, which is why it's so rarely successfully argued in AfDs.

  The issue though, is that it's pretty common for creatives to start work on a project and then have to drop it for various reasons, as evidenced by pages like Tim Burton's unrealized projects and David Lynch's unrealized projects. WP:NBOOK actually has a criteria specifically for works where the author is of exceptional historical significance, however the criteria specifically says that it cannot be applied to unpublished books. Unreleased books can pass NBOOK, but they would need coverage to show that the anticipation is notable per WP:BKCRYSTAL. For films, this equivalent would be the movie's production.

  I think that requiring productions to be notable, regardless of the director's notability, is reasonable - especially when we consider that the historical significance criteria would make it extremely likely that coverage would exist, making the whole "they are historically significant" a moot point. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My point wasn't at all to do with inheriting notability, but just as an easy set of examples of very-high-budget films that get a lot of (GNG) coverage for a slew of different reasons (which yes, include the name attached as director).

  Mostly I liked the amended wording because I dislike the implication that future films we have (and should have) articles on are here because the production is what's notable. Coverage is being generated not because writers think the production is particularly important, but they are covering the production because the film itself is thought to be important. To some degree this distinction is splitting hairs, as I do agree with: Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles. (full stop added). — HTGS (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't get the difference. The point is that a film that has the overlap of being produced and being covered is what qualifies. It's pedantic to talk about the production being notable, because it's not like we keep a separate production article once the film is out. The topic is the film. What should be discussed is how to assess each piece of coverage. A lot of it comes from trade papers. Is anything by them too routine? What is the non-routine coverage needed from them to count toward notability? Because there can be routine coverage referenced to flesh out the article, even if it does not contribute to notability. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I can tell, I agree with you. How we parse apart the “generally” in my above quoted text is worth interrogating, and I do not believe it should hinge on a “notable production”, whatever that would mean. — HTGS (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I see now what you mean by "full stop added". I had revised the section a while ago to emphasize in the very beginning that the film needs to at least meet WP:GNG. And even if it does, that filming needs to be underway. Like a Venn diagram overlap of the two, not one without the other. For this reason, I don't see the need for the redundant language toward the end, which is why I complained about the production focus. When coverage can be other kinds of commentary. The point of the initial threshold of being notable (per coverage that may now be considered too routine) and having started filming is to avoid the gray area that we have to venture into now. If reliable sources cover a film being actively made, and other sources echo that coverage, that is real-world acknowledgement of a near-certain event/product. A neutrally-written film article accumulates the coverage and gives readers access points to learn about related topics on Wikipedia, like the source material or a director or writer's past documented efforts. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue the notability of the production IS what makes it pass NFF. There is significant coverage about it that has independent thought and review outside of the normal churnalised crap that comes from film promotion. The film is a good example of what does pass NFF. If the film never made it to market it would still be notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting on the discussion above, I think what would help everyone is to outline what coverage works and doesn't, and what to do instead. I think a key problem is that trade papers covering future films can nominally be significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject, but we have to look beyond WP:RS to explain why this is insufficient. So I've done a couple of things as seen here:

1. Explicitly numbered the criteria that needs to met, both the right kind of coverage and the start of filming
2. Created a coverage guide to explain what constitutes routine and non-routine and what actions are available to editors who want to make edits based on the coverage they see

I think this way, if editors jump the gun in creating articles or thinking they're ready for the mainspace, this coverage guide can clarify things. Basically, we provide a framework and indicate alternative actions. Hopefully at least this setup works? We can refine the specific language in the numbered items or the coverage-guide subsection. Thoughts are welcome. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing I'd want to see is a brief discussion on when it is acceptable for an article on a film that never entered production due to something like development hell, where there is extensive non routine coverage of the development problems. Eg Akira (live action film) has through this before. If we didn't have the documentary Jodorowsky's Dune, that attempted film would also be a prime candidate for that. Masem (t) 17:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. Maybe the "Similarly" sentence could be slightly expanded to cover that? Did you think the coverage guide subsection needs to touch on that category too? Erik (talk | contrib) 17:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One issue is the statement "and the start of principal photography is a near-certainty". In AfD discussions, people will quote this as a reason to keep while ignoring the lack of significant coverage. They do this already but this will just reinforce it. The other wording is more clear. If you could revert until we have a consensus that would be appreciated. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think establishing non-routine coverage is more important at this point anyway, and far less likely to exist before filming starts. Erik (talk | contrib) 00:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think the additional section helps. I know this sounds like oversimplying things, but we could just take the whole guideline and say "unreleased films are not notable unless they meet general notability guidelines." Press releases and churnalism obviously do not count towards GNG. Those are the sources I see everyone arguing about in the discussions. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're saying? That the subsection helps, but take the whole guideline and... what? Replace everything with just one sentence? Erik (talk | contrib) 00:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My statement about having a single sentence was facetious. I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately we the extra content (the new subsection, which helps) to explain things in more detail. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, alright, I totally missed that tone. Erik (talk | contrib) 01:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a significant addition to the MOS, I am pinging those involved in this discussion for them to assess. In addition to Masem and CNMall41 commenting after the section break, HTGS thanked me, so I assume they saw it. Two changes happened:

1. Numbering the future-film criteria more explicitly, especially to indicate both must be met
2. Creating a subsection that serves as a guide for future-film coverage, with what coverage works and what coverage doesn't

Pinging editors Bastun, JohnFromPinckney, jolielover, Elemimele, MikeAllen, ReaderofthePack, LEvalyn, Tamzin, 4meter4, and 331dot. Also notifying WT:FILM in general. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include examples of what would be considered routine coverage and what makes them routine? Some of them can seem kind of in-depth if you're not familiar. For example, would this be considered routine coverage? It's an exclusive announcement via Variety about the cast. It's fairly lengthy but at the same time it looks like it draws pretty heavily from a press release and promotional blurbs. This is more obviously routine coverage, as a lot of it is just "what other things they did and are doing". There's a bit of actual information in there, but some of it is just a repeat of the Variety source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should include examples. These may be more from in the middle of filming or more when approaching release. Anything earlier may need to be more like "discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects" (from WP:CRYSTAL), which was why I used the word "discussion" as part of non-routine coverage. Whatever we figure out, we can do something like WP:ASSESS to indicate that at this point, the version is likely good to be standalone. Your example is a little more substantial than the norm and good for piecing together background (especially the bit about starting in "early 2023"), but I think under this criteria, it's still routine coverage. It can still be "sprinkled" through the relevant articles that tie into this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged -- the new version accords with how I had generally understood the criteria previously, but is much more specific and explicit. I like it. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all of the above - the new section, and the use of examples. Rehash of a press release while adding some other trivia is just churnalism and not WP:SIGCOV. Good work. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I think this is a vast improvement in an area that causes much hassle. Thank you! Elemimele (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to these changes, could editors please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivien & the Florist. By my reading of the sources, this film project has a lot of routine coverage. Would this be an example where the amount of cast announcements crosses into WP:SIGCOV? BOVINEBOY2008 09:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! Read here that not every short film has SIGCOV to pass GNG. If we count music video also as a short film, but there is only a primary source available and are no (or very less) secondary independent sources, means we cannot make a standalone article, right? But can we include that particular film name in actor's article, whether in prose or in table/list? Similarly, what about an actor (having already a Wikipedia article) in a TV / web series with less SIGCOV in PSTS? Thank you! M. Billoo 08:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think I've seen a music video get its own article. They've always been covered in the main article for the song itself. I think the only times I've seen one get its own is when the music was kind of secondary to the video itself, like the video was the main point and the music was commissioned for the video in question. It's fairly rare for a music video to become independently notable of the song. Even when there's commentary it's more a case of whether or not someone thinks it suits the music in question.

As for listing it in the actors' articles, you could probably include it in the filmography section in an "other" section. If they have appeared in multiple music videos you could have a section similar to the one at Courteney_Cox#Music_videos. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a head's up here as well as at NFILM. There was a discussion about whether or not Film Threat could still be seen as a reliable source, as the site puts a fairly huge emphasis on filmmakers and studios purchasing one of their marketing packages if they want a review out even remotely close to the actual release date. You can see the full discussion here, but the gist is as follows:

Film Threat started charging for reviews back in early 2011, at which point the only way to obtain a review was to pay them. The site continued this until 2017, when the site went down and came back up. In 2018-ish, the site began offering what would become its current marketing packages. There was definite emphasis on purchasing marketing packages, which has only gotten worse over time. The site offers an award, but nominations are only available for those who purchase a marketing package. The award has received almost zero coverage, other than two outlets doing a single announcement each of nominations. The participation wasn't huge, but there was a consensus that the site is unusable for any reviews or articles written after 2010 and that the award is not usable to establish notability either.

I didn't know if this was something that anyone wanted to mention here as an example of a now unusable source, so I wanted to bring it up here. I am also hoping to raise some visibility of the source since up until very recently it was one of those sources that people figured probably wasn't usable but kind of looked the other way about. Unfortunately it got to a point where it was the only thing keeping some film articles at AfD, so it's becoming a problem. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It has begun filming, as mentioned here. But the AfC reviewers declined it, saying it doesn't meet notability. RangersRus and Hurricane Wind and Fire, why is a major tentpole considered unnotable by you? I thought you guys only viewed independent/arthouse and world films that way. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I originally declined the draft because the sourcing when I declined the draft wasn't enough for notability about filming beginning and it seemed WP:TOOSOON for me because principal photography had started the day the draft was submitted. I'd say the movie is notable enough for an article now if we can add another source or two, but open to more discussion. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 00:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No not just independent/arthouse and world films, all industries are viewed that way. No exceptions. The page is WP:TOOSOON and not ready for mainspace. Many similar pages like Shrek 5, 120 Bahadur, Mardaani 3, Dhurandhar 2, Indian 3, Avatar 4 and more made it to AFD where the pages were redirected, draftified or deleted for same reason. 120 Bahadur eventually made to mainspace when reaching close to release date garnering significant coverage on the film followed with multiple critical reviews. RangersRus (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good points made by RangersRus. I'm thinking we wait a bit more. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 14:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with RangersRus. WP:TOOSOON. WP:NFF is very clear. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently became aware that a change to this guideline about films that are in or out of production but have not been released was made on 17 January 2026 by User:Erik that I disagree with, [2]. Erik deleted a sentence that films that have not yet been released should not have their own articles unless production itself was notable. The edit summary was Redundant to the first paragraph. No. The removal of that provision allows articles about produced but unreleased films that have had a great deal of advance publicity, where the publicity has been notable, because there is a large budget and a great deal of hype, or because the director or the production studio have ultras, fanatical fans. That provision that was removed was the check on promotional articles stating that the film is being filmed or that the film was filmed and will be available in theaters in three months.

There has long been conflict about whether unreleased films can be the subject of their own articles after they are produced. Usually articles about these films are inherently promotional because all that they say is that the film will be released.

That sentence was not redundant. The sentence was substantive. It was my opinion that that provision should have been clarified, and was the source of confusion, but it was needed. I will be restoring the deleted sentence as the R in the BRD cycle.

I see that discussion about NFF has been going on since 2024. The conflict about articles on upcoming films has been going on for more than a decade. About a year and a half ago, Bastun wrote: Enforce WP:NFF; or delete it? Removing that sentence has almost the same effect as deleting it. Most articles about unreleased films are promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The whole guideline has changed so substantially that this sentence does not matter anymore. Multiple editors above support the current version with outlining the non-routine coverage, which encompasses production, so I am undoing this even-more-tacked-on sentence. EDIT: Here is what it looked like before, and the start-of-filming criteria was apart from having coverage to be notable. This current guideline puts the notability criteria at the top. Advocate for tweaks to that. Again, consensus from editors above approve of the current version, so ping everyone if you want to discuss the nuances. This guideline isn't a step back at all but provides greater clarity. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added mention of WP:NOTPROMO to point to policy about it, so that can be applied as needed. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am mainly interested in the ability to decline drafts at AFC on films that are in production or have completed production for which there has been routine coverage. Will someone please look at Template:Unrelfilm and either rework point 2 or recommend reworking of point 2 so as to be consistent with the new wording of the guideline? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Most articles about unreleased films are promotiona" - The same sentence I have been trying to get across at AfDs for the last few years. I can start to shoot a film, throw out a press release, outlets can churnalise it, and the film would then qualify for a Wikipedia page. I don't really care how/if the policy is changed with the exception of clarifying it for the drive by AfD voters. My take is that unreleased films do not qualify for a Wikipedia page unless they meet WP:GNG with significant coverage independent of the film promotional coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:CNMall41, for at least reading what I had written. Do you think that the current wording is sufficient to allow a reviewer to decline drafts about films that are between production and viewing? Do you think that the guideline should be changed again? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was an easy answer. I think the way they were previously was enough, but it comes down to the interpretation which some feel is inherent notability. I have damage to my skull from beating my head against the wall arguing the opposite. I believe it is confirmation bias for those who are on the ILIKEIT vote so they say it is notable because filming has commenced. Not sure how to rectify that. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]