Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Airport (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 keep.  Sandstein  18:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

International Airport (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable film. A failed television pilot (which are rarely notable) which aired as a TV movie. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails both WP:NFILM and WP:NFO -- Whats new?(talk) 08:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would argue it deserves an entry - it aired as a stand alone film, regardless of the fact it was picked up as a pilot. It was made by a noted directed, Don Chaffey, and producer, Aaron Spelling and the cast were very notable.Dutchy85 (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 07:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep agree with Dutchy, does have some rs press coverage shown in the article WP:AGF as they aren't linked Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The press coverage is not "significant coverage" as required by NFILM. The first and third are mere TV guides mentioning a program will air that evening. From NFILM: "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, capsule reviews..." -- Whats new?(talk) 05:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It can pass WP:GNG independently of WP:NFILM, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Aired after the end of the television season and failed to win any awards. Whatever the claims of an 'all-star cast', the mentions are merely 'this aired' and 'these people starred in it' and 'here's a plot summary'. There's just not enough here to justify an article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Airport (novel) This source says the material was based on this book, and was basically an attempt to bring Airport (the film) into a weekly television format. So it's at least notable for being that, but not much more.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Should qualify under WP:NTV -, and . Hzh (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, may qualify being the operative term, following the necessity that "significant evidence that the pilot has notability for reasons beyond simple confirmation of its existence." No person is yet to provide any sources which demonstrate notability. As mentioned earlier, existing references are mere mentions of the basic plot and listings in TV guides - per NTV and NFILM that does not demonstrate notability -- Whats new?(talk) 05:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That sentence is about simple announcement of a planned pilot that may not be aired, and this one was aired as a TV film on a TV network, and it is therefore "likely" to be notable as noted in the guideline. There are many sources in books - . Hzh (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it states "A dropped pilot which does go to air as a standalone television film or special [...] may, however, qualify for an article on that latter basis which refers to "...significant evidence that the pilot has notability for reasons beyond simple confirmation of its existence." The book quotes you mentioned are again trivial mentions that something exists. The film/pilot did not win any awards, does not have a cult following, and is not noted in multiple reliable sources for anything meaningful that would establish notability here for it to hold its own article. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a misreading. In a sentence, when two items (or groups of items) are mentioned, the "latter" refers to the second one mentioned, and that is "a standalone television film or special". That is, the notability is determined as television film or special that has been aired on a television network (which is considered likely to be notable). The line you mentioned clearly is about a "pilot in development". Hzh (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is, there is still no establishment of notability. The mere existance of a TV pilot becoming a movie fails to do so, and all the references brought up are trivial mentions - not critical review, awards, cult status, etc. which is required to pass NFILM, NTV and indeed the GNG -- Whats new?(talk) 08:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A show that is "likely" to notable and mentioned in books would mean notable. This is not counting the fact there would likely to be reviews, but these would be from a pre-internet era that made them hard to search for. Hzh (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Likely" according to what? WP:NFO is clear about requiring notability via reliable sources. The film does not meet any of the 8 criteria in NFO. The closest it gets to is "significant involvement...by a notable person" and even then it could be covered in their bio article, or as Mrschimpf suggested, at the novel's article. But there remains no verifiable, reliable sources to establish notability for this failed pilot in its own right. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Likely" is merely a reminder by WP:NTV that a show broadcast on a main network nationally would likely receive significant coverage in the press, which is especially true when there were fewer channels. It is simply harder to find sources for older shows because of the issue of archiving (something not archived on the internet does not mean they don't exist), or special subscription may be required to look for them. Hzh (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that may be the case, but verifiable sources are still needed to establish notability regardless. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Of course, it's noteworthy. A made-for-TV film with an all-star cast, broadcast in prime time on a major network and reviewed by TV critics in newspapers around the country, automatically qualifies for inclusion. TV films regularly pass notability guidelines without any questions and this entry should be no exception.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not per WP:NFO and WP:NTV. Extensive coverage in verifiable sources are needed. The film was not 'made-for-TV', it was a failed TV pilot which aired on its own, and it was not reviewed by notable critics in great detail, it was listed as 'something on TV that night' in newspaper TV listings at the time. It has not developed a cult following or the other requirements of NFO. NTV says "A dropped pilot which does go to air as a standalone television film...may...qualify" if there is significant evidence of notability for a standalone article. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A number of made-for-TV films were structured as pilots for potential TV series — some of those features were successful and served as the basis for a TV series — other features merely remained as stand-alone made-for-TV films. International Airport was one of the latter and appears on Wikipedia's List of television films produced for American Broadcasting Company.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * None of that establishes notability. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources. The title should be listed in the article you mention for completeness, but that doesn't mean the title deserves its own article. There are many red links in that list article, and International Airport should be one of them -- Whats new?(talk) 06:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not distinguish between "notable" and "non-notable" films. For the purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia, every film from around the world, whether made to be shown in movie theaters or not, is eligible for inclusion. Section header "External links" is expected to contain links to standard film sites, such as IMDb, American Film Institute (AFI), British Film Institute (BFI), Turner Classic Movies (TCMDb), AllMovie, TVGuide, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. References are also expected, of course, with one or two newspaper or magazine reviews being deemed sufficient for avoiding deletion. International Airport has links to IMDb, BFI and TCMDb as well as three cites, including two-and-a-half paragraphs of text in Chicago Tribune, published at the time of the film's premiere.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true. I suggest you read WP:NFILM: "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage." The external links to imdb, etc are user-generated sites which can't be used to establish notability. The "three cites" are not extensive coverage, they are TV listings detailing basic plot outlines, including the one you linked to. Further, in WP:NFO which mentions that "significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films", it lists 5 alternate criteria for such cases, and this film doesn't meet any of them:
 * 1) It is widely distributed on a national network, but has not received full-length reviews by 2 or more nation critics
 * 2) No evidence of historical notability
 * 3) No awards
 * 4) Not preserved in the national archive
 * 5) Not taught in university or college
 * It also fails the three "inclusionary criteria"
 * 1) Not a unique accomplishment in cinema
 * 2) Not a major part of a notable actor's career that would "clutter up the biography page"
 * 3) America is a major film producing country
 * This failed TV pilot turned TV movie is not notable by the outlined criteria for general notability or topical notability. -- Whats new?(talk) 07:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with WP:NFILM and I interpret it to mean that International Airport has met the "reliable sources" qualification under "External links" — in addition to IMDb, which is appended to every film, no one questions the reliability of the BFI and TCMDb links and additional external links to AllMovie or TVGuide can be easily appended. Also, Chicago Tribune gave it a brief write-up, not simply a TV listing.
 * Furthermore, if those "5 alternate criteria" were to be strictly applied, there would be no need to cherry-pick or single out International Airport for deletion nomination. Deletionists could run riot over the entire List of television films produced for American Broadcasting Company or all titles under Category:Television films by year, with 95 percent of all such titles nominated for deletion.
 * Ultimately, the barn doors would be wide open. A strict application of the "three inclusionary criteria" would enable deletionists to set upon List of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer films, List of Warner Bros. films, etc and start to AfD each film which they felt was "Not a unique accomplishment in cinema". It would open a Pandora's Box (presumably that would not be one of the films nominated for departure from Wikipedia).   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 June 2018 (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.