Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha (Julia Ducournau film): Difference between revisions

Alpha (Julia Ducournau film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. Should be moved back to DRAFT, at least until a release date is announced. Currently it says ” release date has not been announced but is expected in 2025 or 2026″. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, France, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nomination is totally erroneous. Firstly, the nominator did not address the usual question of whether the topic meets GNG—It does (it has not been argued that it doesn’t, so there’s no need for me to go into detail here, and the article speaks for itself). A film that is unreleased could mean that a WP:NFF activates so as to indicate that the film cannot meet WP:NFILM, and, potentially, that the article is WP:CRYSTAL, but that is not the case here. Namely, only films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, while unreleased films that have been filmed, like the subject film, are definitely eligible for normal notability considerations. The CRYSTAL problem is not there because the facts included in the article are stable and will continue to be relevant when the film is released. For example, the noteworthy fact that an actor lost 20 kilograms for his role does not depend on the film’s release.—Alalch E. 22:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn’t unusual for actors to change their appearance for a role. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Production having “unusual” features or not is not the point; the point is the existence of reliable independent sources covering it. Notability and singularity are two different things. –Mushy Yank. 23:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is the point, “Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.” There’s nothing notable about the production of this film itself. What’s described in the draft is all routine coverage that would render WP:NFF meaningless if applied to all such articles. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No. The fact that you don’t find it “notable” (=unusual) is NOT the point. Sources covering various aspects of production exist and that is the point. –Mushy Yank. 10:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That interpretation would render WP:NFF meaningless, so are you going to propose its removal? 331dot (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What I am saying is not an interpretation and is pretty standard (your comment, on the other hand, (“notable=unusual”) is one) and what I say does not render NFF, as it is, “meaningless”, no (what you are saying, on the other hand, would imply to change it). I have no further comment, I am afraid. –Mushy Yank. 11:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not changing anything, just going by what NFF plainly says. If casting annoucements and coverage of other routine announcements by the makers of a film render the film notable, NFF doesn’t exclude much as all films do that. Not trying to solicit a reply from you. Best wishes. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s not why I said that the topic is notable, it is the durability and lasting noteworthiness of this fact, taken as an example, and the same goes for other statements in the article, which means that the material is not CRYSTAL material, and does not need to stop being live for that reason. —Alalch E. 23:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (The fundamental problem with articles about unreleased films (and upcoming events and forthcoming works in general) is that there is nothing or very little to say in the article which will still be true, relevant, and worth noting when the film is released—it should be judged on a case-by-case basis; this problem does not exist here.) —Alalch E. 23:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Even though the film is upcoming and even if it was never released, coverage in reliable sources (casting, filming, topic, acting) is imv sufficient to establish notability. –Mushy Yank. 22:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. This fails WP:NFF. There’s nothing unusual about the production of this film. It doesn’t even have a specific release date. There’s nothing that says “unreleased films that have been filmed” are notable. Theoretically it could never be released. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If it’s never released, we’ll add a sentence or two about how and why this notable unreleased film about which we know XYZ was not released. And add it to Category:Unreleased films —Alalch E. 23:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If there are sources that describe why it is unreleased. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain as I was the one that approved the AfC, but to share my reasoning: While WP:NFF is correct as a general principle, in this case I think the production is noteworthy enough to merit an article, due to the anticipation of Ducournau’s work. Reviewing similar pages, many similar films have been created by experienced editors around the time that filming begins or is completed, assuming that there are sufficiently many references to support notability, which is the case here. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically, you didn’t “approve the AFC”, you edited the draft and then moved it into the encyclopedia yourself, it wasn’t submitted for another AFC review. You can do that- just saying. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: WP:TOOSOON indeed. Please tag with the apropriate “Do not move this to main article space until…” tag for films. UtherSRG (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I created this article after noticing Alpha listed in Julia Ducournau’s filmography on Wikipedia. Curious about its details, I researched the film and found sources such as World of Reel and Fangoria, but both appeared to be poorly sourced translations. To ensure accuracy, I compiled properly sourced details from reliable French publications, making this Wikipedia entry the most precise English-language resource available on the film’s premise.The article is not WP:CRYSTAL because it is built on verifiable information rather than speculation. WP:NFF does not apply here, as the film has completed principal photography, and significant coverage exists in reliable sources. Even if the film were never released, its production and premise have already garnered notable discussion, making it a valuable topic of record.Additionally, per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, rules exist to support Wikipedia’s mission as an educational resource. In this case, removing the article would eliminate one of the only well-sourced English-language references on the film, counteracting that mission. As such, the article should remain.Scombridae (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing about NFF says that the completion of principal photography merits an article on the film. If it did, it would render NFF meaningless. IAR is not a blank check to do whatever we want. If trade publications like Variety are writing about this film, it’s not true that this is “the only English language reference”- nor is it our responsibility to promote this film in English for those that make it. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies for the confusion—I should have been clearer. When I referred to “the only English language reference,” I meant in the context of the basic outline of the plot, not in terms of overall coverage or trade publications. I see how this could have been interpreted incorrectly.

  I completely understand the importance of following guidelines, and I recognize that IAR is not a justification for bypassing them. However, keeping the article in place rather than deleting it provides a more practical path for improvement. Articles that remain accessible in mainspace are more likely to be expanded by contributors, whereas moving them to draft or deleting them entirely creates additional barriers to collaboration. If more coverage is expected in the near future, maintaining the article allows for incremental development rather than requiring a complete restart.

  Additionally, this article already contains as much, if not more, information than some existing 2026 film articles, such as SOULM8TE, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, Mercy (2026 film), and Flowervale Street. These articles remain in mainspace despite being at similar or earlier stages of development. Since additional sources will likely emerge as the film’s development progresses, keeping the article allows for a more structured and continuous improvement process. With ongoing updates and verifiable sources, it can develop into a well-supported entry that aligns with similar articles at this stage. Scombridae (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can only speak to the article in front of me, not others that I have not yet examined. The existence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate has no bearing on this one, see other stuff exists. It only means that volunteers haven’t gotten around to addressing them yet. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits.

  “Additional sources will likely emerge” is WP:CRYSTAL. The desire to draw attention for improvement would justify including any and all drafts in mainspace. You or anyone is free to solicit help on, say Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. I don’t think the article should be deleted, only that it should be in draft until much closer to the release date- which we don’t even have yet. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]