Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leatherface (film)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.141.182.82 (talk) at 22:27, 5 June 2015 (rewording). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • @Erik II:, you know that being the title of a periodical doesn't mean that the content within is significant. It's about what they are talking about, not naming the article. Let's look at what Michael provided from Google News: 1428 Elm.com looks totally legit as a source, is basically publishing an image from a magazine and rumors about the film. There are a total of 9 results for 'Texas CHainsaw Massacre 4', and all (save for maybe 1) are unreliable sources posting on the same information. A switch to "Leatherface 2015" yields a total of 15 results, almost all of which are just casting updates. Where is the actual significant coverage on the film? Since when did casting information become significant coverage? If it's not notable before a film starts filming (which NOTFILM specifically says that it isn't), which is it all of a sudden significant just because we have 1 additional line that filming has started? Why do we have a statement that "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."? If the production itself must be notable, then that means we need coverage beyond simply announcing who is in the film or who is writing the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • How are you defining "trivial mention"? WP:SIGCOV has a footnote that says a band mentioned in a sentence in a biography would be considered a trivial mention. WP:SIGCOV also says the topic does not need to be the main topic of the source material, so the reliable sources that have articles about this film's development and casting more than meet the criteria. I don't see why this information cannot be considered significant coverage. The language of WP:SIGCOV indicates that we want at least partial attention by sources to the topic, which we have here. Regarding that sentence in the guideline, it is unbelievably old, being added in July 2006 as seen here, referencing WP:CRYSTAL (however it was worded back then) and asking some key questions. To me, it seems like a long-term straggler that could be removed as no longer applicable. Coverage of preparation for the film before the start of filming should count toward the topic because it shows as least partial attention toward it. Technically, we could have stand-alone articles based on pre-filming coverage, but we established a consensus not to do that because we know from experience with this particular subject matter that there can be coverage about a film that never gets underway. When it does get underway, that coverage becomes meaningful. The history of how it came together matters because there will actually be a tangible product. Also, for this particular franchise film, I find it unrealistic to believe that coverage would just stop here. It seems detrimental to delete this article just because it does not have additional detail yet. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm defining "trivial" as anything that is nothing more than a passing announcement. Significant coverage would be more elaborate coverage of a topic, not that it has to be the main focus of the article. Announcements are not significant coverage. Yes, the history of how it came together is important in the overall look of the production, but it hardly establishes notability for a topic when all you have are announcements of an event occurring and not a single source detailing anything beyond that. There is no source covering this film beyond saying who is in it and rumors about what it is about. I cannot see where that is hardly significant coverage. SIGCOV says, "The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.") is plainly trivial." is very much on the same line as a one sentence mention in an article that Stephen Dorff is in the movie. My question has always been, how does casting information make a production notable?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • (chuckle) Then by your wish for sources offering more than trivial "announcements", we have multiple sources available which deal with this film and its plans directly and in detail. Thus we have notability for the topic of the production and plans and background of a project which has begun filming. So, as you so generously shared with us up at the top right below your deletion statement as if it somehow forbade an article, WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met.... like it or not... misinterpret it or not. And while "substantive" is not a guideline nor policy mandate, we do have enough sources substantive in content.... and guideline does not in any way or form mandate that newer sources must be substantive. The requirement under SIGCOV is that sources address a topic directly and in enough detail so that readers do not have to use original research. THAT we have. And even though you have made it point to WP:BLUD every !vote that disagrees with you, it looks like a consensus based upon applicable guideline is being built for a keep. Thank you. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • “we have multiple sources available which deal with this film and its plans directly and in detail.” For instance? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bignole, the footnote example says that a single sentence in the source, a biography, should not be used to determine that a band is notable. Sources like Deadline.com and The Hollywood Reporter are not one-sentence aside mentions like the band example is. The two aforementioned sources provide full attention toward the developing film and outline the framework of that project. The notability guidelines basically say that if sources take an interest in a given topic, then Wikipedia should most likely have an article about it. For future films, we've exercised caution because we know developments can fall apart and have opposed pre-filming coverage if filming has not yet started. When filming starts, the chances of a final product are much greater than before, which is why we work with this threshold. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of a topic is coverage of a topic. And the backstory of how a film came into being is suitable. Even though reasonable exceptions have been allowed to it, WP:NFF was written to keep Wikipedia from being overwhelmed by well-sourced articles on films that might not ever get made despite the topic otherwise meeting WP:GNG. But as the topic of this film's planning and production meets WP:GNG, and it IS being filmed, we now have guideline and policy acceptable notability for inclusion. And we can expect a lot more for further expansion and improvement to this article. Sure, you can go ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film but as two of the project's coordinators or former coordinators have already spoken up here, that might be seen as unnecessary canvassing. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, the originally "suggested" redirect to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise)#Future does not help our readers, as that section is woefully out of date. When a film begins shooting, a spin-out article is acceptable and welcome... and has happened here many times. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you’ve answered my question at all… “the topic of this film's production meets WP:GNG”—Again, what exactly do you mean by “production”? Do you mean the phase that comes after pre-production, or the entire filmmaking project as a whole, or something different? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to continually use that distracting green text as if I (or others) were unable to read or understand what you write.
Under MOS:FILM#Production, "production" is an inclusive term not an exclusive. We are not Merriam-Webster, and that word does not restrict article content to or mean "only stuff dealing directly with the actual filming"... which is why many film articles in Wikipedia contain sections dealing specifically with creation, planning, writing, casting, and the eventual making of those films... information included under MOS:FILM to increase our reader's understanding-in-depth of the overall film topic. All aspects of the topic of the creation, planning, writing, casting, and eventual making of a film fall under its "production" processes. Since the topic of the plans for production of a potential film Texas Chainsaw 4 (now Leatherface), have been discussed directly and in detail for many years, its coverage means it can and should be spoken about somewhere per policy... and it was "mentioned" (although very poorly and very briefly) in the nom's suggested redirect. As no film is 100% until the box office opens and folks actually watch it, what is restricted by WP:NFF is that we should probably not have a separate article until we have confirmation of filming, and we now have such confirmation. So since the topic meets WP:GNG, now that filming has commenced a separate article is now merited... one which informs readers of all the aspects surrounding the topic of the creation, planning, writing, casting, and eventual making of this film. It's what we are here to do. And yes, in this unfinished encyclopedia which admits it is imperfect, the article is far from complete. More to do... more to do. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I used the green text because that’s how {{talk quotation}} is designed. I used {{talk quotation}} because I was quoting you on a Talk page. Feel free to propose changes on Template talk:Talk quotation; I’m not too keen on the color, either. But blaming me for it is like blaming me for the color of wikilinks in my post. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to propose changes for a fine template when it is unfortunately being misused by anyone, as it is not the template's fault. And while perhaps not a big deal to some, it is distracting. More, the {{talk quotation}} page tells us "Use this template for inline quotations (of other editors' comments or from the article) on talk pages" (my emphasis), so you might feel free and welcome to use it on this particular discussion's talk page if sidebars are started there... but please, this AFD discussion page is not the "talk page", and per WP:AFDFORMAT the use of {{talk quotation}} and color is not listed as what is recommended for commenting or responding at AFDs. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right, I misspoke; I meant I was quoting you on a discussion page. I’m afraid I can find no mention of formatting or coloring on the linked page, and I note that you used unconventional formatting yourself in this last comment. (Incidentally, wikilinks are also not listed as what is recommended, and they are clearly not discouraged.) And as this has gone off topic, might I recommend that any further replies be taken to our own Talk pages? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leatherface_(film)&oldid=665680327"