Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinematic Book Trailer


 * 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   redirect to Trailer (book). (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Cinematic Book Trailer

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is a fork of Trailer (book) which uses the adjective "cinematic" to make it seem like book trailers with higher production values are a whole new category. The only good source used, Chicago Tribune, says that book trailers have been poorly made in the past and that some are improving in quality, but does not use the term "cinematic book trailer" or state that such cinematic book trailers are a new type. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Trailer (book) - nothing here that cannot be found there. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My main concern is that people understand the difference between a normal book trailer and a "cinematic" book trailer. There is obviously a difference, and it is starting to become a very popular form of promotion and marketing. I did not feel putting "cinematic book trailer" as a separate section in the already existing "Trailer(Book)" page would do this form of media justice. I encourage you to consider leaving this page up, but ultimately if it is decided that it is in the best interest for viewers to take it down, I will simply have to make the distinction clear on the existing "Trailer(Book)" page. I look forward to all of your advice on how we can get this issue resolved.Vvenk001 (talk) 17 August 2012 (UTC) — Vvenk001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Are there any reliable sources that actually say that cinematic book trailers are different? There is one newspaper column and one blog post which say that some book trailers are better than others, but not that there is a new type. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 00:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 00:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. 00:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Just putting my two cents in... the idea of "cinematic book trailers" is not new. This has been done since at least the 80s, with a great early example being John Farris's Wildwood. It could still be considered somewhat traditional, but it did have acting in it. (Not great acting, but it's acting.) It's just that a lot of early book trailers tend to get forgotten because they weren't really mainstream enough to where tons of people were archiving them like the movie trailers today, so a lot of the news sources are treating it like it's a new idea to use book trailers and to have them mostly acted out. They've always been present but with the Internet making it easier to archive and watch, it just seems like it's new. I'll see what I can find, but I'm leaning towards a merge and redirect.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is a difference between the two and it’s not just production value, it’s also the form. Book trailers feature stock stills, stock video, slideshows and graphic design. Cinematic book trailers are more like movies. Some feature celebrities, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfzuOu4UIOU others don’t show the characters at all http://www.theotherhouse.com/our-work/what-the-night-knows/. Some have followed the form of the music video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SYfDafLOQk while others have been shot as full length scenes from a motion picture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omk_tKYhf4c. There is a big difference between throwing together generic media on an iMac and the actual production of a book trailer, enough of a difference that it warrants distinction with the word “cinematic.” When you google both of them, the results and the content and the form are appropriately distinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrymiller2010 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do know there's a difference, but the biggest part is trying to find reliable sources to back up that the term "cinematic book trailer" is anything other than a neologism to describe a higher grade of book trailers that are more like movie trailers. There are some that mention the term, but generally the trailers are just referred to by the generic "book trailer" term. I think that's what the biggest fuss is about. It's just too new of a term, so at most what it could be is a redirect to the book trailer article with a very brief mention that the higher quality trailers are called "cinematic book trailers". I've done a search throughout the night and I just don't see where the term is heavily enough used and properly sourced enough to warrant a completely separate article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Trailer (book)/Delete. I've made a mention to the term in the book trailer article, but ultimately this is just a neologism used to describe a slightly different format of book trailer. A search on Google does not bring up mention of the term in the news and the literary sites that feature book trailers of this nature simply refer to them as "book trailers". Even the publishers seem to refer to them predominantly as book trailers or book commercials rather than call them cinematic book trailers. (Examples:, , , , , , Hutton Stars in His First Book Trailer, ) To be honest, the only people who are predominantly referring to the trailers as "cinematic book trailers" are a group of sites that produce and sell them. (As someone who frequents many of the various book blogs, sites, and such, I can personally vouch that the term is not very widely used.) To show that the term is anything more than a neologism or a marketing term you'd have to show that the general public beyond the sellers are using it. They aren't. If I can be blunt, a redirect would actually be fairly generous when you consider that almost nobody uses the term. (I don't mean to sound harsh, but a search with "cinematic book trailers" and "cinematic book trailer" only brings up about 11-12K of results, which aren't that many.) In the end it's just a neologism and there's just not enough here to justify a separate article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well in the case of a redirect I think a distinction needs to be made on the page even if it just acknowledges the newer form that garners 11-12k hits on a search. I mean if it's not widely used enough yet to justify its own page. I'm not familiar enough with Wiki's standards to know what sort of numerical search results justify a new page. Tokyogirl79 is correct in that there are not many articles that discuss the differences between the terms. In all fairness though a search brings up way more than just production companies, in fact a lot of those "companies" are pretty difficult to find. I just did a search for the term "cinematic book trailer" and in 3 pages saw only one company and it was nowhere near the top of the results. Rather there is a list of "cinematic book trailers posted by authors or video forums such as trailerspy.com and publishers such as www.greenleafbookgroup.com. Most of the results I saw are not businesses and seem to signify that the term is used often and has a separate meaning from book trailer, but is not as popular of a term as its generic predecessor. However when you do a search for the term "book trailer," there are more companies that come up immediately than when you type the term "cinematic book trailers."henrymiller2010 —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC) — henrymiller2010 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Really, 11-12K isn't that much when it comes to ghits, not when you compare that to "book trailer" which gets over five million hits. This means that less than 1% of the internet is using this term, which means that it's not a common enough term in the grand scheme of things. (WP:NOTNEO) Wikipedia isn't a way to increase usage of this term. It's just not really a used term and it's considered a neologism. Neologisms are rarely used on Wikipedia unless they can show that it's notable and more than just a new term being thrown about. It honestly doesn't matter if a handful of people are using the term, that handful of people aren't showing that the term has any notability at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The "handful" of people are very much showing that the term has notability," since many notable publishers and writers are using these cinematic book trailers and calling them that, and some of them use notable public figures in the trailers. Anthony Swofford, Adam Wilson, Julie Klam, Timothy Hutton and Eric Roberts are all notable people with wikipedia pages to back up their notoriety. These trailers were of course produced by companies or they would not exist, but they do exist and because the market is open and the term isn't as old as "book trailer" doesn't make it irrelevant or unworthy of acknowledging its existence.Vvenk001 20 August 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC) — Vvenk001 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Thing is, very few of them actually call them specifically by this name. There's some mention of "cinematic" in relation to some of the trailers, but never really enough to where this specific term is being commonly used. Again, this is a neologism and it does not warrant an article of its own. There's a mention of it in the main article for book trailers as well as a mention about the differences between trailers, but there's absolutely zero need for a separate article about this. Thing is, to show that it has any notability you'd have to show that more than a handful of people are using this term. While this doesn't mean that "cinematic book trailer" couldn't eventually become more than a neologism, it isn't a notable or well used term now. As far as notable people using the term or starring in the clips, that notability is not transferred to the term. It just means that a notable actor is starring in a trailer that the production company terms a "cinematic book trailer" or that a publishing company called a trailer cinematic or used the term once in a while. The predominant term for book trailers is "book trailer" and this is ultimately a neologism for a higher grade of trailers that everyone is predominantly (and almost exclusively) calling simply "book trailer". I'm sorry, but the term doesn't have notability simply because you believe it does. To show that a term is something other than a neologism, you need lots of sources to show that it's commonly in use. You'd have to have tons of articles that specifically use this term over a long period of time. Not drop the term "cinematic" in the article in general, but use the term "cinematic book trailer" specifically. Out of the sources given, here's what we have on the article:
 * This one doesn't mention "cinematic" at all.
 * This also doesn't mention the term, just has the author saying that book trailers are relatively new. (It isn't, book trailers of varying sorts have been around since at least the 80s, if not earlier.) In any case, this just doesn't show notability for the term either.
 * This is just a YT video. At no point is this described as a "cinematic book trailer" by the publisher on this page. This can't show notability for the term.
 * There's a lot of mention of people calling things "cinematic book trailers" but at no point are we given links to reliable sources that are actually calling any of these book trailers "cinematic book trailers". Sure there's the people who produce the stuff calling it that, but where are the people who are saying things to back up Most recently Oscar-nominated actor Eric Roberts starred in what's being called a "cinematic book trailer" for Deborah Henry's debut novel "The Whipping Club." By that I mean that people are calling the trailer a "cinematic book trailer". I'm not questioning that various people are starring in these book trailers, just that this term is being bandied about to the degree to which you and a handful of other incredibly new users are claiming it is. You both have signed up only to edit an article about book trailers and are generally unaware of Wikipedia's notability policies and policies about neologisms. I'm not saying this to be mean, just saying that this term is too new to merit an article about this term or even really anything more than a mention that the term is being used along with various other terms to describe book trailers, if even that. It's just that new of a term and there's no guarantee that it'll ever get more of a mention than it is now. I'm also going to apologize for this if neither of you are affiliated with any of the companies mentioned in the page, but I have to ask: considering that both of you have been editing only this article and the article repeatedly hotlinks to various companies, are either of you affiliated with any of the companies listed in this article, either because you work directly for them, know someone in the company, or have been hired by the company to produce the article? There's no rule against doing this, (although you are supposed to state if you have a COI) but I'm a little worried that you might have a conflict of interest that might keep you from viewing everything as neutrally as someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - This really just seems like an unnecesarry split from Trailer (Book), and Tokyogirl79 already merged the relevant information into that article. I suppose this page can be left as a redirect if people actually think that this may be a plausible search term.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:24, 24 August 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.