Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leatherface (film)

Leatherface (film)

Leatherface (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. Per future films:

Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. 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. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.

All reliably sourced information can be found at The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise)#Future already, which is pretty much casting information. Major issues with the article, other than the lack of significant coverage, is that "Leatherface" has never been officially announced as the title of the film, and there is no reliable source to verify that. The "principal photography" date is sourced to an unreliable website that has not editorial oversight or meet the criteria set at WP:RS. Attempted to redirect the article title, but the creating editor keeps reverting it. I would do a merge proposal, but there is nothing to merge (because it already exists on the other page) and there is no guarantee that "Leatherface" will ultimately be the title of the film. Needs to stay on the franchise page until significant coverage is created after filming starts.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Dread Central has some location images and a teaser poster that has the title as "Leatherface". The title looks like it's official, although as with any film this could still be changed prior to its official release. Bloody Disgusting has also written an article that uses this title and both sites are considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia. I'm still looking for sources that would confirm that filming has commenced, but these sources would confirm that as of this point in time Leatherface is the correct title. If the name is changed prior to its release date then this can always be changed in the article- that's not really a biggie. Films change names all the time and we refer to them as "originally titled ___" or "also known under its working title of _____". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to check the stars' and directors' social media feeds- those are usually some of the easiest ways to check and see if filming has started. It looks like everyone is there at the filming location per the location shots in the DC article, but that doesn't mean that filming has officially started. It looks to be a pre-filming party, which would mean that filming should start very, very soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• If we can confirm that this is Jessica Madsen (one of the actresses in the film) then this would confirm that filming has begun. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• This Bloody Disgusting source confirms that filming has begun. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I struck my comment about it starting film. It still fails significant coverage criteria, as the future film criteria specifically say that basic announcements of casting or starting of filming is not enough to justify an article. All of this information fits into the paragraph that already exists on the franchise page. Since there no rush and we have 2 notability guides that say this article fails...it really shouldn't exist right now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry about that! I didn't realize it'd been crossed out until after I posted that last bit! I do see your point though about the low amount of coverage, which is a little surprising to say the least. I'll see if I can dig anything up, though. (I really wish I had a good TCM pun to throw in there.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Good luck. When I have searched it was largely been basic casting announcements and the inclusion/dropping out of writers and directors. I'm surprised they actually started filming, and although Bloody-Disgusting says "leatherface" that's largely a rumored titled for the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's being thrown about in a lot of reliable sources so far and the first Dread Central link ([1]) has a teaser poster with the name on it, so it doesn't look like it's just a rumored title. I'd say that for now it looks like it is the official working title, so if the consensus is to delete/redirect then I'd support using this name as a redirect. 05:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yep- official title. Dread Central has a picture of the poster in a magazine from Fantastic Fest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you finding sources to verify the title and start of filming. Have you found anything that actually covers the filming to provide that significant coverage? I haven't found anything, and for a Chainsaw film that's sort of surprising considering how much coverage there was for the last one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The movie has already begun filming. And has received a ton of coverage in reliable sources (just looking at the article will show you that). It is absurd that someone nominated this in the first place. Koala15 (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  Again, you must not be reading WP:NOTFILM or WP:GNG, because you wouldn't be claiming that it has received a "ton of coverage". NOTFILM specifically says that basic announcements for casting and start of filming are not sufficient to justify notability. So, just because it started filming does not mean that it is notable, especially when there is barely any coverage on the actual filming.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete until more content is possible than announcements of cast and crew positions, or unless the production itself can be shown to be notable. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry anon IP, but its production has such coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

• Keep per meeting WP:NF. The production has been receiving more-than-trivial coverage since 2013,[2][3][4] to meet WP:GNG and with filming confirmed, WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. The project is served by having this remain and be improved over time through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You cannot link to Google and say that it's "more than trivial coverage". IMDb is not a reliable source for news either. Announcements in the "Google News" are still announcements. You may want to brush up on the definition of "significant coverage". All the production section has is the announcement of writers and cast. That is in no way significant coverage of the film, since all of that existed before the film even started production.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow... "is no way significant coverage of the film, since all of that existed before the film even started production." Huh? It IS coverage of the film's plans and production, can be used to inform our readers, and is exactly the expected coverage for a film to be made... and NOW that filming has commenced, production meets notability criteria just as WP:NFF requests. Are you somehow suggesting that every sourced pre-production section in film articles on Wikipedia should be eliminated? Topic coverage is topic coverage. I am sorry you may not have looked at any of the multiple articles that came up in the proffered google search, and sorrier still that, although "IT" is not considered reliable for IT's own news, you apparently did not look at the partial news coverage links listed at IMDB... as THEY would be generally reliable even if the IMDB as the place they are found is not. As the current article here is already overwhelmingly sourced, I chose to not over-source it. However, in my sensing a misunderstanding of WP:NFF (and the related WP:WIP and WP:PERFECT), perhaps when I return home this evening from a project, I might go ahead and source the ever-living-heck out of the article. Unused so far are many articles that speak toward the project's pre-production planning and choices. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Since you apparently cannot find it. PER NOTFILM: "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." and per GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." - Casting information and announcement of writers/directors, which is what is on this page, is just trivial mentioning. There is nothing actually discussing the production of the film. Thus, it fails the GNG and NOTFILM. I think you are mistaking multiple sources for significant coverage. If 10 people report that Stephen Dorff is in the film, that doesn't mean that is significant coverage. Significant coverage is based on the amount of content, not the number of people reporting it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:SIGCOV due to numerous periodicals covering the development and the casting for the film. There is not trivial mention here; WP:SIGCOV has a footnote showing an example of a trivial mention. Articles that headline Leatherface is not trivial, even if the same general details are being reported. Also, it has verifiably crossed the threshold of having started filming, which means that a concrete product is underway. I've never seen "the production itself is notable" to mean that we need significant coverage about the filming itself even though we already have significant coverage about the preparation for it. To me, it is intended to guard against having articles about films in production that nobody has been covering at all. I think it may be worth re-wording that sentence, because for non-blockbuster films, there can be significant coverage leading up to the start of the filming (reporting on all the pieces being pulled together), followed by a lull in coverage (maybe there is some local coverage where a film is shot), then more significant coverage as the film comes out. It is detrimental to just delete this article due to lack of filming detail only to restore it later. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)