Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1905 (film)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see no consensus in this long-running discussion so that's how I'm closing it...editors can discuss a possible Merge on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

1905 (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This film was canceled before it even began filming (like happens to many other films). This article does not meet the threshold for notability stated in WP:NFF. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: The failure of the production received a lot of significant coverage from reliable independent media. A redirect to the article about the director should be considered anyway. Absolutely opposed to deletion. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  16:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)  (added 4 sources, there are more).
 * You mean that it received the same one paragraph about the production being canceled because the company being bankrupt. All valid information on the non-exiting Prenom H article or as you say, a one line mention on Kiyoshi Kurosawa's page (which it already is). Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand your comment. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Selective merge into the page for either Kiyoshi Kurosawa or Tony Leung Chiu-wai. It looks like there was a short flurry of coverage about the film and its cancellation, but I don't see where there's been any true long-term coverage about this. The best I could find was this, which only gave it kind of a brief mention. The thing with cancelled productions is that the guidelines is looking for quite a lot of coverage. Even the infamous Superman Lives wasn't deemed to be notable enough for its own article. I think this could be covered in a few sentences on either Kurosawa or Leung's articles at most. Perhaps an "impact" section at Senkaku Islands dispute, if doable? ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  18:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A decent example of what an article about notable cancelled film would look like sources-wise would be Akira (planned film). That's a cancelled film that's been kicking around for decades and still gets some coverage now and again, despite it being in near permanent development hell. It also survived two AfDs, although I'll note that the last one was divided on whether or not it should have its own article. Something like this film, where there's more or less just a handful of coverage, just isn't enough. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  18:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: Fails GNG, NFILM, nothing in article or found in BEFORE meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, keep votes provide no sources or guidelines to eval. Ping me if sources are found.  // Timothy :: talk  15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I added FOUR sources addressing the production and I am not sure how one could consider them unreliable nor insignificant.
 * 1)  Japan Today in an article titled "Atsuko Maeda's film canceled after studio goes bust due to Senkaku dispute" stated,
 * 2) The Hollywood Reporter in an article whose subheading is "The Japanese shingle has filed for bankruptcy amid debt related to action film "1905," which actor Tony Leung pulled out of due to the territorial spat." wrote,
 * 3) Variety in an article whose subheading is "Production delays on '1905' tips distrib over edge" wrote,
 * 4) The Guardian in an article about the effect of the Senkaku dispute on film wrote,
 * Feel free to also open and read the existing sources on the page, and to check the other existing sources covering the production and its notable failure.
 * For example, a ONE-CLICK search gives, among other things:

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) https://www.indiewire.com/news/general-news/tony-leung-and-j-horror-master-kiyoshi-kurosawa-team-for-upcoming-japanese-chinese-period-drama-1905-106255/
 * 2) https://news.yahoo.com/news/style/tony-leung-1905-indefinitely-161527817.html
 * 3) https://variety.com/2012/film/news/tony-leung-to-star-in-1905-1118059020/
 * 4) https://www.chicagotribune.com/2012/09/10/tony-leung-to-star-in-1905-hk-thesp-has-first-lead-role-in-a-japanese-pic/
 * Plenty of other articles about 1905 exist.
 * Oh, and of course, the "guideline to eval" should be WP:NFF ("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.") and/or WP:GNG ("A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), if that is really the issue in the keep vote(s) (there's only mine) mentioned in the one delete !vote above. .- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  17:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Articles about the studio or their financial problems are not articles about the film, none of the above as SIGCOV about the film, they are passing mentions of the film while addressing other subjects. SIGCOV requires direct and indepth coverage of the subject - the film. None of the sources above meets this requirement. Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article.  // Timothy :: talk  17:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just read the titles of the articles or their subheadings, then read them, thank you. Stating that they are not "SIGCOV" and only contain "passing mentions" of the film is not accurate, I am sorry. The rest of your reply is contradictory, sorry again. Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article....hhm, yes, there is an indication and it's precisely the coverage addressing the failure of the production directly and in depth in numerous (again, more exist, as I am sure your BEFORE has shown you) articles in very reliable media. I have no further comment. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  17:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: I beg to differ with the merge vote from ReaderofthePack and the delete vote from Timothy.— Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  17:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Addressing ReaderofthePack's comment first, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Tony Leung, and Atsuko Maeda were all leadings figures in the film, so it is unreasonable to merge the article into any one of them while neglecting the others. The examples raised, Superman Lives and Akira (planned film), are not comparable in this case. Superman Lives was only in the early stages of development, not even with a confirmed leading cast. Akira is not exactly a cancelled film, but rather stuck in development hell and production waiting to resume due to Waititi's current commitments. A recent example with a more similar context that comes to my mind is Scoob! Holiday Haunt, which also underwent pre-production but was scrapped partially due to the production company's financial issues. Scoob! Holiday Haunt still has its article retained.
 * Addressing Timothy's claims, I was puzzled by your statement that "articles about the studio or their financial problems are not articles about the film" and calling the above sources "passing mentions of the film". I agree with Mushy Yank's skepticism about whether you have read the sources listed above. The Indiewire and Variety sources (published in 2012) announced the film's release and provided in-depth coverage of the plot, cast, crew, and development process. Meanwhile, The Japan Times, The Guardian, and Yahoo! News (Cinema Online) sources focused on the film sparking political controversies related to the Senkaku Islands dispute and Tony Leung being labeled a traitor by the Chinese. These five sources have nothing to do with the cancellation of the film, while they are all sufficient to establish the film's notability.
 * In addition to the subjects discussed, I have found numerous related Chinese and Japanese sources. There are sources with in-depth coverage of Tony Leung, Atsuko Maeda, and Shota Matsuda's characters (see Elle). There are also sources covering pre-production, such as reporting on Kurosawa's site visit to Taiwan for film locations (See China Times), on Maeda's preparation for her character (See Wen Wei Po), and on Kurosawa's plan to continue filming despite Leung's departure (See Hong Kong Economic Times). Regarding the film's legacy, there are recurring mentions even though it was cancelled. When Kurosawa's cross-border project Daguerrotype entered the Golden Horse Film Festival in 2016, he was asked about 1905 in interviews and expressed the possibility of continuing the film (see Sina and Liberty Times). Maeda also made comments on the project in 2016 and expressed interest in reprising her role (See Natalie). The language of the sources should not affect its reliability, in fact, it may even be better than English sources in this case, as the film is a Mandarin-language Japanese production.
 * Let's review what we have at the moment. We have in-depth coverage of the film's early development, its announcement, pre-production details such as plot, filming plans, and character descriptions, political controversies related to the Senkaku dispute, the bankruptcy of the production company, the film's cancellation, and continuous subsequent mentions about the film's potential revival. Simply put, the sources listed above amount to a dozen, and there are more available on the internet. Therefore, I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF, as the film's pre-production has demonstrated significance and clearly fulfills WP:GNG already.— Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  17:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - I concur with @Mushy Yank and others who believe that the coverage is sufficient to pass the GNG. DCsansei (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: I see plenty of superficial coverage about the production difficulties, and exactly one sentence about the plot of the film. I'm not sure how that can be viewed as "significant coverage" of a movie. Owen&times; &#9742;  22:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about? The twelve sources I quoted are absolutely UNRELATED to the production difficulties. All of them are either before the production enters controversies, or after the production was scrapped. The Elle source was also entirely about the characters' biography, and multiple sources covered the proposed plot. So I also do not understand which "exactly one sentence" about the plot you saw. I am not sure how you cast the vote without even bothering to click into the sources others provided in the discussion and ignoring the argument that has long proceeded from whether there are sufficient sources, but whether it fulfills WP:FFEXCEPTIONS, which has nothing to do with the reason why the film is scrapped or how much about the film details have SIGCOV in sources, but whether the pre-production or legacy demonstrated significance and has notability. The twelve sources I provided already have SIGCOV on these two aspects, so I still don't see a reasonable basis for deletion up until this point in this discussion. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  04:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's take an example: the China Times source you provided is about a different film - Daguerrotype, and only mentions 1905 in a side note: In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor. That's it. Is that what you call "SIGCOV"? Owen&times; &#9742;  09:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What's the point of taking the one source with the least coverage to argue that all sources do not have SIGCOV? Yes, the China Times, Sina, Liberty Times, and Natalie sources are all not centered around the film. Because as I mentioned, this was to show how the film continuously demonstrated significance even after production was scrapped, and I have explicitly mentioned that some are from interviews of Kurosawa's other cross-border project Daguerrotype. It was to prove that the legacy of the film had significance, which settles WP:FFEXCEPTIONS. (I believe you are well aware that not all sources cited in an article must have significant coverage on the subject, and not all sources count toward notability. So I have zero clues why you chose the China Times source as "the one example" other than trying to pick the one with the least coverage to confuse others.) What you were claiming is that the sources only have passing mentions about "the production difficulties" and "the plot". Then you should focus on sources related to these topics. So what about the Indiewire source? The Variety source? The Chicago Tribune source? The Elle source? The Wen Wei Po source? Or the sources about other aspects of the film, like the political controversies in The Japan Times source, The Guardian source, and the Yahoo! News sources? Did none of them provide SIGCOV? And what about the ones that Mushy Yank listed out (the The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and Japan Today sources)? It's sophistry to pick the one source with the least coverage and use that to argue that none of the sources have SIGCOV, while ignoring all the other sources that do demonstrate. Makes no sense to me at all. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  09:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but you claimed that all 12 sources provided significant coverage about the film. Did you not read the sources, or were you being dishonest? Owen&times; &#9742;  09:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are just proving my point that your argument is sophistry. Please take a look at WP:SIGCOV. An article with SIGCOV doesn't necessarily have to focus on the main topic of the article, it only means that as long as it is not a trivial mention and addresses the topic in detail. Let's put aside whether one of the three paragraphs in the article focusing on 1905 is considered trivial or significant, even though I personally don't consider it trivial. One, it is totally fine even if the article is from an interview of the director regarding another project. Two, I was mentioning that these twelve sources were all providing significant coverage on other aspects of the film, instead of just "production difficulties" or "the plot". That's why I was telling you that all of these twelve sources provided SIGCOV regarding two specific topics - pre-production and legacy. So of course you can only find little of what you were expecting there, because you were not addressing the right topics of the sources. Besides, you were neglecting the other aspects of the film which also demonstrate its notability that the sources provided SIGCOV on. You are being even more hypocritical by explicitly naming the one source with the least coverage (length/words) about the film, and trying to attack my statement on the sources providing SIGCOV, neglecting the fact that I clearly cited this to prove FFEXCEPTIONS. At this point, I think everyone reading this discussion can tell who is being dishonest and hypocritical, and who has a valid point. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  10:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, are you claiming that In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor is more than a trivial mention of the film, or was your original claim that all 12 sources provide SIGCOV a lie? At this point, you have two options: (1) admit that your original assertion was incorrect, and amend it, at which point we can address your amended statement; or (2) dig your heels in deeper, and make it clear to anyone reading this that you are not above twisting the truth to push your agenda. Owen&times; &#9742;  10:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculously hilarious. Alternatively, I think I have already proven to you that your assertions were wrong with my previous reply. One, the China Times source does not just have a passing mention of the film, but has a whole paragraph about it. You tried to conceal this fact with your wrongful translation (see below), and I do not agree that one out of three paragraphs of an interview is considered trivial. (especially the film was already scrapped years ago and the interview was basing on another project) Two, there is nothing wrong with citing an interview of the director in another project according to SIGCOV, so your attempts to refute the China Times, Sina, Liberty Times, and Natalie sources simply because they are interviews of Daguerrotype were wrong. Three, SIGCOV only requires the sources to address the subject topic in detail. It doesn't cover what you expect, simply because you have put the focus elsewhere. I don't see any of the twelve sources I cited failing to cover the pre-production and legacy aspects with SIGCOV. I really don't understand where your confidence came from to continue accusing me of lying, when you seem to be the liar in this case, especially with the misleading translation you provided with the China Times source. Also, I was wondering what is my "amended statement", as I have been holding on to the same one all the time, which is that I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF. By the way, this is not even my article. I am just a random passer-by. What's in it for me to be dishonest? Or what agenda could I possibly have? Assuming bad faith much? Or perhaps the real issue is that you were triggered when someone pointed out that your statements contained untrue and misleading elements. And now you are trying to turn the tables with your strawman arguments (still ridiculed by your "this one source with the least coverage mentions so few about the film, so the all other sources you cited, or the sources other users cited must also be the same") and accuse me of being the one who is dishonest, in an attempt to make yourself look more credible. This is my final reply and I will let the closing admin decide. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, although I can read Chinese, I used Google Translate to run the China Times source. There is a whole paragraph about 1905, which reads In addition, the movie "1905" he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai as the leading actor. He also came to Taiwan to scout the location, but was unable to start filming for some reason. He said regretfully: "I really want to come to Taiwan to film, of course. I also hope to find Tony Leung to act." Which argument is actually misleading here? — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  10:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Prince of Erebor you've made your case, please allow others to weigh in and be mindful of Bludgeoning the discussion. Star   Mississippi  13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was confused when you said I was bludgeoning, and I just realized there were sock puppets kept on closing the discussion. I have already stated that I will let the closing admin decide. (I was just editing some typos and bolding my arguments further, as I was dissatisfied with someone who was lying accusing me of lying instead in the discussion.) I did not bludgeon. (Not implying anything or anyone specific. But it is childish if someone is trying to accuse a veteran editor on zhwiki with ten thousand edits of sockpuppetry. A simple SPI can easily prove my innocence.) (Edit: Those sockpuppets seem to belong to User:Ivanvectra. I apologize if my previous comment offended anyone. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  13:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)) — Prince of Erebor  （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  13:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * to be clear, I know you're not a sockpuppet. You're an established editor and there's no reason for an SPI involving you. That's a bored troll disrupting AfD over the last week. The timing of the semi to stop from playing whack a sock was coincidental. Opinions may differ on bludgeoning, but I'm glad you'll leave it to a closing admin. Star   Mississippi  13:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. I will just leave the discussion here then. Thanks for clarifying, Star Mississippi! — Prince of Erebor  （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  13:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge as a section to Kiyoshi Kurosawa. Although other big names were attached to the production in acting capacities, the film was Kuosawa's project, and it is not uncommon for Wikipedia to associate and list unrealized products with the director. Of course, nothing prevents it from being mentioned in other articles by reference to the section. BD2412  T 22:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: The discussion is recently reopened on 00:04, 6 June 2024‎ per another Wikipedian's request. Since I consistently faced personal attacks and my argument had been constantly twisted, I hereby briefly summarise my stance and rationales once again for the closer or anyone else who may be concerned. Everything I mentioned below can be found above:
 * I have quoted twelve reliable sources (including five English sources found by Mushy Yank, and seven Chinese and Japanese sources that I found, as I can read those languages and the subject film is a Mandarin-language Japanese production) that provided significant coverage on the film's pre-production details, the political controversy surrounding it, the departure of a lead actor Tony Leung, and future recurring mentions of the film's potential revivals, which I consider to be part of its legacy. These sources are all from well-established media outlets. The English ones include Variety and The Guardian, the Chinese ones are from Wen Wei Po and Hong Kong Economic Times, and the Japanese source is from Natalie. All of these sources address the film directly and in detail, and I believe the extensive coverage on pre-production and legacy fulfills the criteria of both WP:GNG and WP:FFEXCEPTIONS. Therefore, I believe this article should be kept.
 * My initial argument is straightforward, and all the sources I presented are verifiable. One source, the China Times, was specifically discussed, as it appears to cover the subject film the least and was excerpted from an interview of the director on another project. To rebut this, I actually posted a full translated version of the source (previously falsefully trimmed down). It spans a full paragraph, while the whole article only has three paragraphs, therefore I did not agree that it should be considered trivial. Still, I agree that this source, along with the Sina and Liberty Times sources, are a bit shorter in length since they are interviews of the director on another project. However, according to WP:SIGCOV, it is also acceptable for the subject to not be the main topic of the source as long as it is addressed directly and in detail. All twelve of the sources I listed fulfilled this criteria and are not passing or run-out-of-mill mentions. I have presented these arguments above twice, but was never addressed. No thorough analysis or substantive arguments basing on the other sources I listed out were raised. Therefore, I respectfully retain my stance of Keep in this relisting, as I believe the film has well fulfilled the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NFFEXCEPTIONS. I will not summarise or address the opinions of Mushy Yank, Readerofthepack, Timothy, OwenX, DCsansei, and BD2412 to avoid further disputes or being accused of making strawman arguments.
 * And respectfully, I find it very exhausting to be assumed bad faith even after this discussion (per talk page of the original closer), merely due to my expression of disagreements with a Wikipedian. While I agree that my word choices may not have been especially mild either, I am uncomfortable of being repeatedly called out for being "dishonest" or accused of "pushing my agenda" to keep my "pet page". Also, just to keep record, I think two sentences I replied in the discussion on the original closer's talk page perfectly sums up the scenario. Did you really review all the sources presented in the discussion thoroughly before you cast your Delete !vote, so you would realise that plenty of the sources are unrelated to production difficulties? Is that also an act of dishonesty? Up till this point, I still see no addresses on why was the sources I cited about pre-production and legacy were mistakenly summarized as covering the production itself (and the subsequent doubts on whether the sources had indeed been reviewed), nor why was the source I clearly mentioned was to prove the film has legacy and fulfill FFEXCEPTIONS, was falsefully trimmed down and quoted to prove that it touches nothing about the film's production details. I guess everyone reading this discussion call tell who is really being dishonest and taking disagreements too personally. That is all I have to comment. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC) noted in the history but doesn't appear on the logs. Just don't want it to get lost. Courtesy  Star   Mississippi  21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Not showing as overdue, but definitely is so there's a log issue. Hoping this works this time Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  21:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: Fails WP:NFF. It’s a textbook case. Coverage is only that it was to be made and was cancelled. There is no significant coverage to meet the GNG. There is no significant material, because there is no film.  There is nothing to merge anywhere.  SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Although WP:NFF states “films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles,” in the case of the movie 1905, WP:FFEXCEPTIONS applies. The topic of the film's planning and pre-production has generated multiple, non-trivial news stories. That coverage is, in my opinion, enough to satisfy the General Notability Guidelines. AstridMitch (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.