Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hymenée


 * 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. There's no consensus to delete an article about a film that, if maybe a bit obscure, has apparently been the subject of some coverage in its country of origin.  Sandstein  05:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hymenée

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence anywhere of notability. I can find almost nothing about this play, except that it existed. The article gives no sources, unless we count an external link to IMDb. Apart from the fact that IMDb is not a reliable source, the entry gives nothing more than bare details (such as cast list and date of production) which would not establish notability even if it were in a reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The disambiguation page Hymenaeus might be a redirect target.  Hymenée is the French spelling.  I think it's a motion picture rather than a play.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. The article originally said "drama", but I see it has been changed to "drama film". However, that makes no difference to whether it should be deleted or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I did a bit of cleanup and sectioning in the hope that French-reading Wikipedians might have access to sources about 1947 French cinema that I do not, else WP:UNKNOWNHERE will be this article's demise.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * fr:Émile Cousinet has a biographical source about the works of its creator :


 * Comment I only found using google.fr. Also, it's a french translation of the play Женитьба (the wedding) by Gogol: fr:s:Auteur:Nikolaï_Gogol. I left a note on the french wikipedia cinema project. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Hello, I take part to the French WP Cinema project. I am not aware of the notability/acceptance policy on this WP, but the film sure does exist. According to this site which indexes all cinema magazines in France, the movie appears in two occasions: one critical review in 1947 upon its release in one of the major magazines of the time (l'Ecran français), and in the complete movie directory covering 1945-1947 releases. So the movie is fairly unknown, and Cousinet (or Couzinet) is well known to have made unknown films (!!) and of rather lower quality, a kind of French Ed Wood (but maybe not that bad either). We do not have a page on this movie on the fr.WP yet, but my approach is to cover as many films as possible, and for sure all French productions (around 10,000 talkies). Regarding IMDb, according to my 15 year experience with it, its questionable reliability is not at stake here, and the related entry looks perfectly alright. So up to the en.WP to decide whether to delete this film or not, but I will definitely manage to have it under the fr.WP -- Vincent alias Fourvin 11:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The existence of the film is not questioned.
 * You say "the movie is fairly unknown", which suggests a lack of notability.
 * You say "my approach is to cover as many films as possible, and for sure all French productions (around 10,000 talkies)". However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on just anything, and requires notability for inclusion. Just being a film does not guarantee notability.
 * IMDb is not reliable, as anyone can edit contribute information to it. The fact that a Wikipedia editor thinks that the "entry looks perfectly alright" does not alter that. However, in my opinion a bigger drawback to using IMDb as evidence of notability is that it is indiscriminate, and includes entries on virtually anything at all connected with films or the film industry. That means that the existence of an IMDb entry is no indication at all of notability, even if the entry is totally accurate. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify User:JamesBWatson's point #4: No... not just "anyone" can edit IMDB. While it is true that anyone might submit information for their consideration, IMDB is edited only by their own database editors, with a claimed 70% of their staff dedicated to vetting information after submission.. Their "unreliability" is seen in their not disclosing just what their vetting processes might be, so that we at Wikipedia might for ourselves determine their editorial oversight or fact-checking policy for its efectiveness. So while yes, much of what they offer is considered unrelaible, and while even they admit to not being perfect, certain portions of their database are genrally accepted as reliable and there have been conversation in which these portions have been discussed (see failed proposal Citing IMDb and discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb).  It has generally been accepted that the older the film, the more likely it is that the information concerning cast/crew/title has been so many times repeatedly vetted that it has the greatest chance of being accurate.  While we do not give credence to IMDB trivia or user blogs, we do give credence to information that is attibuted to the WGA or other organizations where IMDB's information can be verified.  Of course, and as JamesBWatson points out, this naturally results in our citing to that attributed source itself, rather than to IMDB.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is all true. It was careless of me to say "anyone can edit it", which is not really what I meant. However, I still think that the indiscriminate inclusion of almost anything is a more important drawback of IMDb than its questionable reliability. Information in IMDb is probably usually true, but inclusion is no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree: Simply being listed on IMDB imparts no notability. But as I stated above, the information contained therein can often lead to the sources we do accept... which is why while it may be "useful" enough for consideration as an EL to encourage our looking further, it is not as a citation. If someone says to me "It's on IMDB!", I will reply, "Nice. It screened someplace. Now use that information to find the better sources we require."  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all points, but on the other hand, since I have never seen a clear-cut definition of what is notable in WP and what is an actual encyclopedic material (caractère encyclopédique in French), it is left to a part of subjective judgement. And the fact that a collection of items is complete and undescriminate does not bar it to appear in WP. Most of the Bristish PMs are unknown to 95% of fr.WP visitors, i.e. unnotable in my understanding, but I would expect to find them there. Same for the French movies on a encyclopedia in French! Now when it comes to the en.WP, I do not prejudice the decision, even though, with more than three million pages, you can expect to find a kind of coverage completeness on some popular domains such as movies -- Vincent alias Fourvin 15:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say that you're looking for Notability and Notability (films). In short, the article might lack significant coverage, since there's only one source at the time of this writing. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these references, I am not familiar with en.WP (yet? :o), and I will review them. But, in my opinion, it seems we are confronting yet another fuzzy concept with significant coverage! This is also another reason why I am keen on relying on exhaustive (and reasonable) collections with official recognitions (all French films must be delivered an official certificate known as visa d'exploitation) -- Vincent alias Fourvin 21:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have added a few more details and two external links. Octave.H (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment To summarize my position, there is no reason to delete this article: it is a "small" and "unnotable" movie indeed, but it is a registered French one (made after 1944, it has to be officially registered with the French Cinema Authority - CNC); it is accounted for by R. Chirat's directory of French films, which is THE reference index; its two major actors (Gaby Morlay and Maurice Escande), are notable; a poster can be found here. This may appear unsufficient and unnotable enough, but I do not subscribe to throw an actually existing movie in oblivion, as fas as en.WP is concerned. This is not what I expect from an encyclopedia. -- Vincent alias Fourvin 22:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the article has one good published source. I would suspect there is more on this film available in French.  The article is weak now, but it has the potential to grow.  No reason to kill this article that has been began well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Fourvin's mention of French publications mentioning this film would suggest we should keep this article. For something to be notable it does not have to have been mentioned before in Egnlsih, any language can be used to support notablity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2011 (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.