Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy of Oz (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   incubate. T. Canens (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Dorothy of Oz (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable future film. WP:NFF calls for the deletion of articles on films which have not started principal photography, except in the exceptionally rare case that the production of the film is itself notable. There is no indication in the article, its sources, a google search, or a google news search that the creation of this film has begun. Also, the author of the article appears to have a major COI with this article, as evidenced from the talk page. Snotty Wong  talk 20:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment The film's iMDB page and its home site indicate that it is currently filming. Hence, it appears to pass WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The website lists the status as "in production", which is somewhat vague. Also, the WP:NFF guideline is based on whether the film has started principal photography, which in the case of animated films, is somewhat irrelevant.  So, my question is: are the comments on the film's website (a primary source) and/or IMDB (an unreliable source) enough to substantiate that the film is actually in the process of being created (i.e. the animation process has started)?  I'm honestly asking because I don't know.   Snotty Wong   chatter 21:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * NFF includes instructions on how a film topic might be found notable if meeting other notability guidelines, completed or not.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct -- but the other notability guidelines are intended to apply only for projects that have "already begun shooting." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT." The SNGs are set to allow editors further means by which to "presume" that sources toward notability may or may not exist, and are not set to over-ride WP:N itself, as notability is dependent upon a TOPIC having coverage in reliable sources... and the more coverage, the better.  Begun or not, an article discussing a film as a TOPIC, may be found notable if the TOPIC meets the WP:GNG.  I can share examples if wished, but films that have never shot one frame can, as TOPICs, be found notable through meeting GNG.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest -- I'm usually pretty trusting of iMDB for basic production details, but in this case their listing of the project as "filming" is, indeed, a vaguery. News sources suggest that sketches of the characters were unveiled only within the past week. Granted, the argument can be made that this constitutes "the animation process," but I think that's a bit of a stretch. Either way, I'm going to strike my Keep vote while I ponder this. There's a good amount of evidence that the production itself might be relatively notable, so there's a chance it passes muster either way, but it's not the obvious "uhm, dude, it's filming" that I initially thought it was. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  21:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Follow the Google Brick Road: . Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a valid argument for keeping the article. See WP:GHITS.    Snotty Wong   talk 03:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The "ghits" bring up a lot of significant media coverage that fits into the reliable sourcing requirements that these articles require. 23:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regent of the Seatopians (talk • contribs)
 * Please provide links to the coverage you are referring to. WP:GHITS clearly explains that just saying "there are a lot of google hits" is an argument to avoid, because it doesn't prove anything.    Snotty Wong   babble 00:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The link he provided was quite helpful in making determination of possible notability per WP:GNG.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete After some thought and searching, I really can't find evidence in reliable sources that the animation equivalent of "principal photography" (which I would consider actual animation work plus voice work with actors -- any work that brings some relative finality to the cast and crew) has actually commenced. All we have is a primary source indicating that it is "in production," with suspiciously recent (within the last few days) release of "character sketches." This, in the absence of reliable sourcing that says otherwise, strongly suggests that the level of certainty looked for in WP:NFF with its principal photography guideline does not yet exist. That said, this topic is almost entirely certain to pass NFF with flying colors at some point in the future, possibly in the relatively near future. But, until then, my opinion is that it's a delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  01:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A film production may be be found notable if having significant coverage in reliable sources. While indeed, many unmade or in-production films lack such coverage and fail both NFF and GNG, that does not seem to be the case here. A smattering of search results that would seem to allow presumption of notability for the prduction per meeting the NFF caveat about other notability guidelines are offered below.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That caveat is specifically for films that have "already begun shooting." That is a direct quote from NFF. This film hasn't begun shooting. Ipso facto, the caveat does not apply. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have learned that the caveat is one set to allow editors further means by which to presume that sources toward notability may or may not exist. Notability is not dependent upon the presumptions allowed in the SNGs... it is dependent upon having coverage.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently you haven't read the first sentence of WP:NFF: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles.  I don't see any ambiguity there.    Snotty Wong   talk 16:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is far more to NFF than that single sentence, and your not seeing amiguity, does not make it go away. Your insisting that a single sentence out of several in an SNG absolutely overrules WP:N is unfounded,as while SNGs support WP:N in their offering considerations as enouragement that editors be diligent in finding coverage, they do not replace it, nor replace the GNG.  And your continually pointing at one part of NFF in an attempt to repudiate the rest of that same guideline is equally unhelpful, as NFF also allows that a production may itself be found notable through significant coverage in reliable sources.  However, your arguments seem rendered moot in the face of the animation phase in this production of this animated film having begun.    Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which sources prove that the film is out of pre-production?  Snotty Wong   babble 18:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete on the basis of no principal photography (as defined by Ginsengbomb above) means no production. As others have mentioned, the recent release of "sketches" doesn't help.  All I have been able to find is this in Playbill, ( and similarly this in Broadwayworld WP:RS?,) which state that Bryan Adams has started working on the songs. "Bryan Adams is currently moving forward on the first songs and lyrics for the film." While I am not well-versed in animated films, it would seem to me that the songs would be written (and recorded) before the animation begins. (Maybe its possible to start animating some non-musical parts, but I would think the songs set the tone for the whole film. JMO)  Production is scheduled to finish in late 2011.  I know that animation takes a long time to complete, but it still seems like very early stages to me. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * With respects, the topic appears to meet the other notability guidelines as specifcally allowed in WP:NFF. Had it not the coverage it does it would have failed. Having the coverage, it passes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reliable information on the production found above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What information? A Google search?   Snotty Wong   verbalize 03:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per the google (news) search. Big difference that someone who nominates articles for deletion should notice.  You may have to hover over the link, or click it depending on your browser. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A Google News search doesn't actually prove anything. If there is a particular article that you think proves the notability of the production of this article per WP:NFF, please provide it.    Snotty Wong   confer 04:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing counting links with their content, counting links is not what I did, it was the content of the Google News articles, not the number of them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)




 * Keep Coverage beginning in 2007 and continuing through 2010, meets the caveats of WP:NFF and (more importantly to many) the General notability guide: Animation Magazine (1), Broadway World (1), Playbill,  Broadway World (2), Fantasy (French), Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Collider, UPI, ... and to lessor but supportive manner in such as Animation Magazine (2), Animation Magazine (3), KMBC, The Guardian, CNN, Cinema Blend, The New York Times.  There are more that others have found.  These are enough to allow reasonable presumption of notability per guideline, and encourage that the stub article remain to grow and be improved through regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The guideline seems pretty clear on this. No principal photography, no article. ("Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. ") Here is the quote that I think is getting misconstrued in conversation here: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. " The "production itself is notable" bit refers to films that have already begun shooting. We have no evidence that this film has begun shooting. Hence, it very clearly, objectively fails WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear, but then not clear. As I have recently been enlightened, the SNGs are set in place to allow editors to consider circumstances which might allow a reasonable presumption of sources existing, not to limit WP:N, but set as tools to encourage a search for sources.  If sources do not exist, notability is unlikely.  If sources DO exist, then notability is likely.  But like all SNGs, they all send us back to WP:GNG. It was noted by an editor at another discussion, that "Significant coverage is the touchstone by which notability is tested."   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Where were you enlightened to this effect? The last thing I see in the Notability chat you directed me to is this, from an admin: "It should always be the case that if a work passes the GNG, it should be included unless specifically excluded by criteria in an SNG." NFF "specifically excludes" this film. By which I mean, if you are correct in saying this, we should immediately invalidate and delete WP:NFF, because it very plainly, by definition, provides criteria to exclude content. It does not provide any "circumstances which might allow a reasonable presumption of sources existing." It's a "no," guidelines, not a "yes" one, if that makes sense. Again, I think you are mistaken in your interpretation of the relationship between SNG and GNG. Many, many SNGs only exclude. WP:BLP1E is an obvious example (although not quite the same as NFF -- BLP1E attempts to predict that actual non-notability of a seemingly notable topic...NFF, to my eyes, does the same, on a temporary basis). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes GNG. Projects might give additional means of passing "notability", but they don't invalidate GNG. Dekkappai (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not think you are correct. Either that, or everybody referencing WP:NFF is wrong, because NFF specifically excludes content. It doesn't "give additional means of passing." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment many delete comments above deal with whether or not principle filming has commenced. As this is an animation, and animation and character design has commenced (as shown by release of images as provided in some proferred sources above), it might reasonably be concluded that for an animation, this may be considered the "beginning" of filming... as it does specifically involve particpation of director, artists, and animators. Such actual artistic production work in creating an animated film is not pre-production... it IS production, and voicework by the various contracted actors will be among the final steps in production, before moving to post-production.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is definitely a quirk worth considering in this AfD. My own opinion is that the animation equivalent ought to be that voice work has commenced, insofar as the NFF guidelines appear to be anticipating potentially huge changes in cast, crew, etc., if a film hasn't commenced "principal photography." But that's very much my opinion. I understand you are or are considering bringing this to the folks at WikiProject Animation, and would be very curious to hear their opinion on what I imagine is not an altogether uncommon issue. Also, I wish to clarify my above Delete vote -- I am absolutely fine with any number of alternatives to deletion in this case, including Redirect/Merge (to some target that I have no considered yet :) or Incubation. The content is fine, my issue is with the current independent notability of the topic. I am confident the topic will be very clearly notable at some point in the future, possibly in the not-at-all-distant future, so any solution involving keeping the content is ideal. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: WP:NFF has been updated to include a sentence clarifying the notability criteria for future animated films.   Snotty Wong   chat 17:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Snottywong personally changing a guideline to support his arguments during an ongoing AFD is change that might better merit an RFC to gain wider consensus.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The change was discussed on the talk page and has support from other members of that discussion - nor is it a major change, it is simply clarifying where the equivalent line of production is in an animated film, versus regular films as they don't have "principal photography". Please remember to assume good faith.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was unaware of any discussion between the several editors until his change was announced here. Had I known, I might have myself participated in that discussion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you weren't invited because you seem to disagree with me on just about everything. Whether or not that's intentional, I couldn't say.  In any case, please do follow AnmaFinotera's advice and assume good faith.  If I were trying to change the guideline in bad faith purely to support my arguments at an AfD, do you think I would disclose that at the AfD?  I changed the guideline to clarify the notability threshold, and so that wikilawyers can't claim that WP:NFF doesn't apply to animated films because there is no principal photography.   Snotty Wong   express 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Incubate seems to have some significant coverage, and it appears to at least be in production at some stage, however other than confirming its started and who is involved, what else is there to say. Incubate until it is fully confirmed that this animation is in full production, not the rough start process, with actual final animation being worked on and the final voice tracks being recorded. I was going to say merge to the base novel article, but it apparently does not have one. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not adverse to Incubation.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 25 June 2010 (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.