Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 hour rule


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

The result was   delete.  Sandstein  08:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

1 hour rule

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page was proposed for deletion due to being a "neologism". I however, as the author, think that the page has potential. I learnt about the term in media class at high school, and was surprised nothing had been written about it on Wikipedia. I would like the wider community's opinion on this. — This nomination and rationale by Coin945 (talk) 04:51, March 22, 2012‎ (UTC) In the end none of these are reliable sources that prove that this term is anything other than a neologism. I can see where it's in use and where it'd be considered "obvious" but in the end there just aren't enough reliable sources (newspaper articles, books, etc) to show that it's anything other than a neologism. I did a search under all of the different terms and only found one thing that looks like it could be used as a RS and we need way more than one source to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'll look for sources, but I'll be bluntly honest: NONE of the sources on the article are usable as reliable sources that show notability for this idea. A comedic article on Cracked is not considered to be something that would show absolute notability or even legitimacy for the idea. They're a known site, but not considered to be a WP:RS, especially not in this context. The other sources involve pieces of movie scripts and forums, none of which are RS either. This just comes across as a lot of original research.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism. The thing is, there aren't any reliable sources to show that this term is used in Hollywood or that this article is anything other than original research. None of the links in the article are usable at all per WP:RS. Here's my rundown on the articles used:
 * 1) This is a Q&A forum similar to Yahoo Answers and isn't considered a reliable source per WP:RS since anyone can answer it with whatever they wanted and claim to be whomever they wanted. It's just not verifiable.
 * 2) This does mention a rule, but this isn't considered to be a reliable source. It's a random "buy this product" merchant site and isn't considered to be an absolute authority on the subject.
 * 3) Cracked isn't really considered a reliable source as far as verifiability goes. Notability? Sometimes. I just don't think this really proves it in this situation.
 * 4) See the rationale above for MovieOutline.com.
 * 5) This didn't even come up for me at all.
 * 6) (I think you meant to redirect to this ) This is a link to a forum. Forums are not usable as reliable sources for much for much of the same reason that you can't use number one as a RS.
 * 7) This is a link to a download site for a script. Even without the obvious legal repercussions of linking to a potentially illegal script download, merely linking to a script does not prove anything.
 * 8) A link to a blog by a non-notable person. 99.9% of blogs are completely unusable as sources unless they're by someone notable or considered to be an absolute and complete authority on the subject. By this I mean that they're the type of person that magazines, books, and scholars quote.
 * 9) A link to a Disney travel blog. See above reasons.
 * Delete - seems like a recentish meme amongst scriptwriting types. It's hardly a rule. It's hardly even a convention. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I am the editor who originally tagged the article as a PROD, and I still stand by my initial reasoning, that this is a neologism that has no indication of widespread use. While I have no doubt that a convention like this does exist in screenwriting, I can find nothing to indicate that referring to it as the "1 Hour Rule" is a commonality.  In fact, at the time of my initial PRODding, the only three sources didn't even mention this concept by that name.  A couple of the sources that have been added since mention the rule, but not only are none of them reliable third party sources, but several of them aren't even talking about the same thing.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The term used in traditional formulaic Hollywood-style screenwriting for this pivotal point, in which the protagonist's endeavours are thwarted by a seemingly unsurmountable obstacle or suffer some other major setback, is "first culmination", also known as "midpoint culmination", as it is supposed to occur halfway into the film (which for a two-hour film is indeed after one hour). While I had not encountered the term "1 hour rule" before, incorporating such a dramatic event is indeed considered one of the fundamental rules for writing successful screenplays, as shown by the Google book search hits. --Lambiam 20:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As I said, I'm fairly certain this concept exists, just not under the name given here. I would see nothing wrong with an article being created on the subject using the proper name, assuming that it is properly sourced, and doesn't take a large portion of its content from a Cracked article.  Rorshacma (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a valid reason for deletion when the content of an article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. However, that does not seem to be the case here: essentially the same content can be found in reliable sources; if the title is a problem, the page can be moved. I do think, though, that this should be part of a larger article on the Hollywood formula for screenplay structure, to which the current page could redirect. An issue with the current text is that it does not recognize that the formula is not suitable for all film scripts. --Lambiam 23:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Lambiam. It did occur to me while researching that the amount of info on the internet was miniscule compared to how global and wellknown I assumed the concept was - but I plowed on regardless. It makes a lot of sense if there is a much more common term for the concept. I like the idea of having an article on "the Hollywood formula for screenplay structure" - we can talk about the formula that, say, every rom-com follows - why hollywood wants it every time & why it works everytime. I support a redirect to First culmination or to something like: Conventions in Hollywood with more reliable sources. (Can't help feeling that it's a rather obscure name for the term. Are you sure that's what it's called?)--Coin945 (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure that the most common name used in studio sessions discussing a screenplay is just "the midpoint" – in that context everyone around the table knows what that refers to. So a possible article title could be "Midpoint (screenplay)". But I see now that we have an article Three-act structure that mentions the concept, calling it "the first turning point", but does not define its position on the time axis as being at the midpoint. With suitable sourcing, the essence of the current article's content could be merged there, essentially stating that the common advice is to have it occur at the midpoint. --Lambiam 15:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete or redirect: This term probably fits into a wide range of articles and likely has multiple names, depending on who you consult in the film industry. At your film school or media class it might be called the "1 hour rule" but in a studio or stage it might be called the "first culmination" or even have no name at all. The article topic is too small to warrant a whole article, so this topic should be found in a section of an existing page and/or be a redirect to an existing/nonexistent page. First culmination sounds good, it sounds like an industry name of more appropriate tone, we could write it up so it fits the definition of "1 hour rule". Blowing   Top   Hat  06:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk to me 16:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The article makes sense but no good sources are provided to establish notability. Borock (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2012 (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.