Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey Kingdom

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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Kingdom

Monkey Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm bringing this to AfD per a request by User:Koala15. Months ago I'd redirected this to Disneynature#Films since the film had not yet released and the sole sources on the article was this link to a website (which offhand does not look to be a reliable source per WP:RS) that announced that Gregson would be scoring the film and this Deadline article that doesn't even mention the film at all. A search for the article title "Focus Sets Stephen Hawking Pic ‘Theory Of Everything’ For November; Disneynature Dates ‘Monkey Kingdom’ For 2015" brings up this article which merely announces that the film will be made. An additional look for sources did not bring up anything useful, as all I could find were articles that announced that the film would release and/or linked to the trailer and did not go into any true depth about the film itself. I redirected the article but this action was reverted several times. Koala15 has requested that the article go to AfD, so here it is. The thing about this film is that there just isn't anything out there to show that the film passes either WP:NFILM or WP:NFF. It's likely that it will gain more coverage once it releases, but that's not a guarantee even for a Disney film. Heck, there's not even a guarantee that this will release on time as even Disney has pushed back release dates at the last minute. I just think that this is too soon for an article at this point in time. I'd like for this to be reverted back to a redirect if the consensus is to delete, with this to only be reverted once the film has received coverage to where it passes NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that this source was probably the most in-depth source that I could find and even then this just isn't enough right now. It's one source and we'd need quite a bit more to show notability. The rest are along the lines of routine announcements like this article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. It is rather expected to be lacking in in-depth sources given the movie is not yet released. No prejudice of recreation when it approaches that date. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 14:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 14:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 14:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now. There's routine coverage at Variety, Deadline.com, and the Los Angeles Times, but you can't really make an article out of the announcement of a trailer. It's likely to become notable upon release, but Wikipedia is not in the prognostication business. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NinjaRobotPirate: Have you looked at the suggested target? It contains no sourced information about this film... no content, no context... and in lacking sources is subject to immediate removal. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article clearly meets WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give examples as to how the coverage is enough to pass WP:NFILM aside from saying WP:Clearly notable? So far the coverage is not heavy enough to warrant an article, so you will have to show how there is enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I'd agree with you in most matters, but all we have are brief mentions of the trailer and an announcement of the film. I just don't see where there's a depth of coverage here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While not currently used to cite the article (not immediately required), the trailer brought us some more-than-trivial coverage of the production that gives us considerable information about the completed film that releases in just SIX WEEKS. [1] [2] [3] So yes Tokyogirl79... I am of the policy and guideline supported opinion that what we have is a suitable stub that can remain and and grow over time and through editorial attention. WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. Cheers. Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't think that it's enough to really pass notability guidelines since the only one that really goes into any depth other than "here's the trailer" is the first link. I really think that this would be better off as a redirect until more coverage comes out. I just don't see where some announcements of trailers show a depth of coverage in this instance. If we had more lengthy articles that did more than say that the trailer is here and that the film would release I'd be more willing to see your POV, but right now this coverage just isn't out there. While it's likely that the film will gain more coverage when it releases, we can't guarantee that and we have to judge the notability based on the current sources, which just aren't really enough to pass. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A completed Disney nature film with a sourcable release date for NEXT month that will not get additional coverage? Now who's the one speculating? Had the release date been perhaps 8 or 9 months away, you might sway me... but it's next month. Now that I have some time, I'll go ahead and flesh out the stub per available sources. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, but at the same time there have been Disney films that have released (even theatrically) and received little to no coverage. I just don't feel comfortable keeping an article on the idea that it will gain coverage since we can't guarantee that it will- that was my main reason for redirecting the page. It just hasn't gotten that coverage yet except for brief mentions of the trailer releasing. What if it does release and gains no coverage? It may seem unlikely but again, it has happened. A redirect wouldn't be permanent- it'd only be until that coverage does come in. If by some chance it doesn't get the coverage, all we'd have are a handful of articles about the trailer, which are routine and trivial at best with how they are written. If you can find more in-depth coverage like the first source then I'm open to negotiation (which is ultimately all I wanted from the other editor from the start), but I just don't see where it's out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • O ye, of little faith. It is already being marketed to and has planned release world-wide. It's a suitable stub that does not violate policy, and we may expect it to grow and improve over time and through editorial attention. WP:FFNOTE WP:FFEXCEPTIONS Or we can simply undelete it in two or three weeks. And worse, there is no sourced information at the "suggested" redirect to in any way increase a reader's understanding of the topic... and unsourced information is subject to a flat removal-without-discussion. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Brazil:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
France:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Russia:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Monkey Kingdom doesn't have great coverage but it does have enough to prove its notability, especially given its Disney pedigree. It is the 8th Disneynature release, and in the past they have always released these films on or around Earth Day, so there is no reason to think Monkey Kingdom won't come out on its expected release date. It has been averaging more than 240 views per day over the past month, so there is clearly interest in the film, enough to warrant an article. And as Schmidt points out, the movie comes out next month, at which point it can be expanded as it will likely garner more press at that time.--Bernie44 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • However if you look at the sources, they're pretty much all small blurbs based on the press release that was released with the trailer. (Like this one. Pretty much if you look at any labeled "trailer" then they are almost all trivial sources.) There's no in-depth coverage at all when you get down to it. At this point the only thing that the film has going for it is the Disney logo- otherwise all we have is one in-depth article and several brief, trivial articles that just cover the release of a film trailer. Some of them, like this one and this one are pretty much blog sources that wouldn't really pass muster at WP:RS/N. This link is little better than an official blurb on a database like listing. I hate to sound like a hard nose, but the coverage just isn't here yet and I really dislike the idea that we should keep this because it's a Disney film, which is essentially what the arguments boil down to- and while I can be fairly lenient with sources, I'm really uncomfortable with us keeping this based on the idea that since it is a Disney film that it will release and get coverage. I mean, when people come on here and cry foul about us playing favorites and keeping articles based on lackluster sourcing, this is pretty much what they're referring to. I'm not arguing for deletion, all I want is for this to redirect to the main Disneynature page until more substantial sourcing is released. When you consider that this is a Disney release and look at how little coverage it has received so far- only months before its release, then you can understand where I'm concerned about overall notability. I mean, what if the sourcing never comes? A keep in this situation would be done essentially because of the Disney name and because we're WP:CRYSTAL balling that it will gain coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy WP:CBALL cuts both ways, and does not state a completed film slated to release in mere weeks cannot have an article (to be be expanded and improved over time and through regular editing). And to address your own prediction toward Disney films... can you share the list of completed Disney feature films with world-wide release plans that were not determined as notable?
While you shared only the weakest, not all sources are simply short blurbs, and both longer and shorter provide information directly related to the topic for policy mandated verifiability.
In your own crystal prediction, you have offered no sources even hinting that the thing will not be released as planned.
Perhaps per existing coverage the article should be moved temporarily to Monkey Kingdom (trailer) or Monkey Kingdom (film plans) or Monkey Kingdom (April release) or Monkey Kingdom (Earth day) or similar... and simply moved back a few days later when it is released? Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't, but then in this situation we have a Disney film that has yet to receive more than one in-depth article doesn't really pass notability guidelines. That's where my concern comes from: the film is set to release soon and other than the one MovieFone article, all we have are a handful of articles that say the same thing about a trailer's release. Sorry to be stubborn, but I just don't see the depth of coverage here. That's what concerns me: we have a film that hasn't received anything beyond one in-depth article and a bunch of articles that talk about the trailer's release, despite it being a film by a big name company with a release date coming up. If the film releases and doesn't gain coverage then what? Yes, it's likely but we can't guarantee that it will. That's the crux of my argument, that we just don't have the coverage. I think we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on this since this particular conversation isn't going anywhere and just let the closing admin decide. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The repeated crux seems to be more toward "What if it does not gain coverage". Do you believe Wikipedia is somehow irrevocably harmed by waiting four weeks? Or do you doubt the verifiability of the information within the present article that currently informs readers? WP:IDEALSTUB tells us a short article can allowed to remain and grow, and your earlier redirect to Disneynature#Films sent readers to a name with no sourced information to serve the project or readers interested in learning more about this particular sourcable topic. After two more WP:RELISTings this discussion will be rendered moot, for more and more sources become available as each day passes. WP:IMPATIENT? or WP:OUTCOMES? Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NinjaRobotPirate: Not all are simple announcements, and most include information that serves our readers, but fine... ignoring the few that discuss the film production in detail, we can declare WP:NFF (paragraph 3) as failed for it as "a completed and soon to release feature-length film" and, as we have plenty of sources discussing the trailer in relationship to the soon-to-release film, we can move the article to Monkey Kingdom (trailer) or similar to avoid that concern that a completed Disney film does not merit being an exception to guideline. And I will gladly move it back to its proper title in a few weeks when it is released. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not be harmed irrevocably, but then if it doesn't get the coverage then we have to go through another AfD to just redirect the article to the main page for Disneynature. I'm just extremely uncomfortable with making an exception for a large company when we don't make them for smaller companies where their films have a similar chance of gaining coverage. Normally I do agree with you, but I don't see where the article itself will be harmed if we redirect this for a few weeks until the movie releases and gains that additional coverage. The only difference will be that it won't be in the mainspace for a few weeks, that's all. It's not forever unless the film fails to gain more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tokyogirl79: Your suggested redirect does not serve to inform our readers. I asked you above and was not answered. To address your own unsourced guess that a completed Disney feature film might eventually be non-notable ( I suppose it could happen ), can you at least share the list of completed Disney feature films with world-wide release plans that were determined as non-notable? I remind that we strive to preserve information, Wikipedia accepts that it is a work-in-progress and immediate perfection is not a mandate. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a whole list of cancelled films and projects here, in various stages of completion. There are also the widely released feature film sequels for various film franchises, some of which saw a limited releases in multiple countries, and then there are also television projects in production like this one that don't seem to pass guidelines either. Again, I just don't see where the coverage is heavy enough yet. I'm all for this getting dragged out until more coverage becomes available though. It's just that right now the coverage isn't heavy enough and again, I don't like the idea that we should make an exception for Disney when we don't make them for other films and other companies. The rules need to be applied to all or none, or at the very least the rules need to be altered to take mainstream companies into consideration, although some could argue that it could run into WP:NOTINHERITED territory. Also, the redirect isn't completely unhelpful in that the film is listed on the page as a Disneynature film, which is something that is extremely common with a lot of film production companies. And again, I'm not arguing for full fledged deletion. I just think that this should redirect to the main company's page until the film has released and gained more coverage. It's a redirect, not a death sentence. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think either of us are going to agree with the other, so I really think that we should agree to disagree and wait for the closing admin's decision. If they choose to keep it, I won't contest it. However us going back and forth over the same points is not changing either person's opinion. I still say the coverage is too light and a redirect will not harm a thing since it will likely not be permanent when the film releases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did you choose to not nominate the more poorly sourced 2016 announced project The Lion Guard (TV series)?? Is it existing more for WP:INHERIT due to it's base article, or because it was spoken of in some terrific sources as planned... it was only recently announced as being planned, it has not yet filmed, and it might not ever be. No matter, I will adopt your logic and in the morning will myself send IT to AFD as failing WP:NFF. Please merge and source pertinent information to your suggested target so as to inform our readers and I would then be happy to consider this one's removal from mainspace. We can always ignore WP:IAR. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monkey_Kingdom&oldid=1136109488"