Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filmizing


 * 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   keep. Though there is agreement that the article needs a better title and other improvements.  Sandstein  11:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Filmizing

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article has lacked proper citations since September 2007. None of the article's current references or external links use the term or even discuss a discrete process that could be construed as being similar to the term as it is used in the article. Further, a search (Google, Google Books, Google News) for reliable sources (ie film industry accepted) using the term has been unsuccessful. Filmnuts (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional note: while I was writing this comment I noticed that a web-search for "film look" produces some very good results. The following are 3 templates to help find additional (and free) references (including books and magz) for the article:
 * Comment: Not "quite" as unsuccessful in my own search, the concept and term of "filmizing", or making digital footage look like film, is sourcable and the article citable. Is it earth-shattering news? Nope. Is the process notable? Maybe. Is the topic mergable elsewhere? Likely.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found those sources as well. None are relevant.  Only three of the sources use the term "filmizing" as the article currently describes it.  The majority of the others use it to mean adapting a previous, non-film work (i.e. a book) into a film and at least one is not referring to photographic film at all.  Of the three sources that do use the term in the same way as the article, none are published by reliable industry sources (something like the ASC (American Society of Cinematographers) or the AMPAS (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences)).  "Corporate Tides" seems to be some sort of business text, not specifically about film.  The other two titles, "Making Movies on Your Own" and "Reality Check," each only use the term once and neither states or implies that it is a discrete process or gives any indication of what "filmizing" specifically entails.  In fact, the use of the term in "Reality Check" is in a glossary where it defines it as "an informal term."  I don't know what your personal level of knowledge on this subject is, but I have been in the film industry for over 7 years and I can tell you, "filmizing" is not a thing.  The individual techniques listed in the article are definitely real, however, they are not part of a larger umbrella process.  And while there are ways to make video look more like film, there is no defined process for doing so.  All of the techniques are simply options that filmmakers have at their disposal to use to create a desired look, regardless of their capture medium. Filmnuts (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Not really germane to the issue at hand, but I have myself been involved in the entertainment industry for some 11 years. I did not opine a keep, but instead suggested that as the term does have usage within the industry and is a seachable term reflective of a method to address the end apearance of a film, that even if the article had not been improved much since 2007 we might at least consider some place where this information might be merged/redirected.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep ~ On my first reading of the article it is evident that there is much to do. The term "filmizing" is ambiguous and uncommon. It can be used for both adapting a work (for example a theatrical play or a book) on film, aka filmization/film adaptation, and for making video formats (VHS, Super 8, ... but also digital formats) to appear like a film. From this point of view it seems pretty clear to me that this article could stay on Wikipedia. About sources and citations, there is not very much, actually. A definition of "filmizing" or, more accurately, of "filmlook" (or "film look") can be read on Lindenmuth, Kevin J. (1998). Making Movies on Your Own: Practical Talk from Independent Filmmakers. pp. 139–.... The "filmizing" process or, more precisely, a digital approach to make "videos" look like film, is used by professional video editing software like AVID, Premiere, or Final Cut, and post-production software such as After Effects or Nuke, and also by some digital cameras.
 * Happy Editing! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy Editing! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy Editing! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy Editing! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep – probably needs a better title and some better sourcing, but there seems to be an actual topic there. Dicklyon (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Film look or Film look process per User:Pjoef. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: Film look redirects to this article. No indication in the logs that this article was moved from there. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we get a consensus on best title?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (Note. The following "delete" is not a second "delete" !vote. After the preceding "keeps", the nominator is simply expanding on deletion reasons.)


 * Delete:
 * If one is to take the meaning of "filmizing" to be adapting an existing work to film, then Filmizing should be deleted and "filmizing" should redirect to Film adaptation. Most Google Books sources use "filmizing" this way, so this seems to be the most logical option.
 * No one is arguing that there are not ways to make video look like film. There absolutely are.  The reason Filmizing should be deleted is that "filmizing" is neither a discrete process or an umbrella term for all processes to make video look like film.  And so far, no source has been presented that makes claims to the contrary.  In fact, "Reality Check" (referenced above) plainly states that it is "an informal term," probably not the basis for a full article.
 * User:pjoef mentions that "film look" returns many results, that is because "Filmlook" is a proprietary service offered by a company of the same name, a point which "Making Movies on Your Own" (the source of the term) also makes clear. It is not a synonym for what Filmizing claims "filmizing" is.  If anything, it would be a type of "filmizing," were that a real thing.  The fact that the website for Filmlook  does not once use "filmize" or "filmizing" should be seen as evidence against "filmizing" being an actual term; if it was going to be used anywhere, it would be used on the website of a company that, on its homepage, claims it makes "video look like film."
 * The sources referenced here in support of keeping Filmizing are not professional sources, they are intended for amateurs or hobbyists. The best analogy I can think of to illustrate this is that using these sources to cite an article on filmmaking is like using sources on RC model planes in an article on professional aviation.  These sources don't have the reputation for fact checking or accuracy WP:SOURCES in the same way that professional sources do.  Some examples of professional film industry sources would be publications of trade organizations (ASC, ACE, DGA, SOC, AMPAS), publications by labor organizations (IATSE), trade publications (Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Millimeter) or publications by equipment manufacturers, sellers or renters (Arri, Sony, Clairmont Camera, Filmtools).  I see the fact that none of these sources use the term "filmizing" as a big strike against Filmizing.
 * Lastly, there are certainly some sources that use the term "filmizing." However, there is a difference between a source simply using the term and that source being a usable citation for a Wikipedia article.  So far, only three sources have been presented as using the term "filmizing" and each uses it only once.  And that's it.  There is no explanation of the specifics of what filmizing is besides that it somehow makes video look more like film.  This is certainly not enough to base a Wikipedia article on WP:N.  Further, any information in Filmizing should be completely disregarded as far as this deletion discussion is concerned, as it currently cites no sources for any of its information.  The burden of proof rests on those claiming that Filmizing and any of its content is accurate WP:BURDEN.  Since September 2007, no one has presented sources that say any of it is. Filmnuts (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expanding on your deletion nomination reasonings in such great detail. However, a redirect to film adaptation is unsuitable, as THAT term refers to taking a written work and adapting it to create a screenplay suitable to become a film or television project. As you pointed out, while the article title filmizing is problematic, it would seem that the processes of making an electronic video or digital "film" look like it was done in analog film format IS covered in sources.  Rather than redirect to an inappropriate target, I agree with User:Pjoef that we might then consider a better title for this article and discuss how it might be better focused to serve Wikipedia and its readers.  If a consensus of editors determines that this process, by whatever name is ultimately used, is verifiable and merits inclusion, and that the topic might thus remain and be improved through regular editing, then it will be. WP:NOEFFORT is not grounds for deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There definitely are ways to make video look more like film, and the information should be present somewhere on Wikipedia. However, since there is no single definitive process, nor umbrella term used to describe possible methods, the most accurate title for an article on the subject would be something along the lines of "Making Video Look More Like Film" or "How to Make Video Look Like Film," which is getting into the territory of being a how-to guide rather than an encyclopedic article.  Perhaps a better method of conveying the information would be to disperse it among the articles on each individual technique (i.e. In frame rate note that video is usually 60 interlaced fields per second, but that using 24P mode will record at the more film-like 24 progressive frames per second.)  In reading the articles that filmizing links to, it seems that for the most part, this has already been done and in cases where it has not, the information in filmizing may be copied over to the appropriate articles and given citations.  Simply retitling Filmizing as "Filmlook" or "Film Look" would be inaccurate.  Filmlook is a specific proprietary process of the company Filmlook and while most uses of the phrase "film look" are in the context of making video look like film, the phrase is not being used to describe any process or processes themselves, but rather is being used as a synonym for "the look of film" or "the visual and aesthetic qualities qualities of film."  Also, I understand that film adaptation is about adapting previous works into screenplays.  I suggested the redirect as most of the Google Books results for "filmizing" use the term as a synonym for "film adaptation," rather than a method of making video look like film. Filmnuts (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and determine a more apporpriate article title than the problematic filmizing. I find the arguments by User:Pjoef, User:Dicklyon, and User:Jorgath to be convincing that we have a notable enough topic here that has simply suffered from WP:NOEFFORT.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to film look processing or something, obviously. And equally obviously, make the current title be a DAB page, since we have reliable sources for multiple meanings of the neologism "filmize" and its derivatives like "filmizing". — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:25, 29 April 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.