Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Passion According to Andrei

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 redirect to Andrei Rublev (film). ansh 666 07:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Passion According to Andrei[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is essentially a WP:DUPLICATE of another very large GA-rated WP article called Andrei Rublev (film) with only tiny differences as shown by the article comparison tool (Comparison of The Passion According to Andrei and Andrei Rublev (film)).

The article author refuses to add references to support these small differences in this version of the film, or merge their small differences into the main article (they reverted an earlier merge by myself months ago). Their main reply to the lack of references for these small differences is to "see the film" (per Talk Page). The author granted his copy-article a GA-rating (since removed [1]). The references in The Passion According to Andrei are simply copied from the Andrei Rublev (film) WP article.

The Andrei Rublev (film), is a notable with lots of WP:GNG. There are references to calling it The Passion According to Andrei, but it is the Andrei Rublev cut that is the official and notable version (and chosen by the Director himself, per the Andrei Rublev article). Hence a redirect (and merging any content, but only if referenced) to Andrei Rublev is proposed. The Andrei Rublev article already discusses the The Passion According to Andrei cut (with references to support). I could not find any WP:RS that would support the various small edits the article author has made (probably why they have avoided producing any). There are no RS discussing the tiny differences between these two copies, so the The Passion According to Andrei article is either WP:OR, WP:POV or just false.

Having persevered with this author for months now, awaiting references or some resolution of this situation, am now using AfD to see if we can resolve this and get community consensus on a Redirect to Andrei Rublev (film); and merge, to the extent any of these small edits are true/supportable/referenceable. Britishfinance (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been reviewed as a valid article by Wikipedia and should be retained. In this case, these two films have two different chapter outlines and were released in different years. The first film was made in 1966. The second film was made and released in 1969. The Criterion Collection also released both films as separate films as a further indication of these being two separate films. The requesting editor Britishfinance appears to be upset that after posting this on the Talk page some weeks ago that no other editors have supported him. Similarly Britishfinance does not appear to have seen either one of these two films. Since the editorial board at the Criterion Collection has released these 2 films as two separate films with different titles, both of these articles at Wikipedia should be retained. The new article has already been reviewed by Wikipedia as proper and the article should be retained. CodexJustin (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @CodexJustin: @AndrewOne: WP does not decide notability based on the Criterion Collection. WP is not a catalogue or directory of films (e.g. WP:NOTADIRECTORY). For a film to have its own WP article, it must be independently notable. Almost every reference for this film (even the ones titled The Passion According to Andrei), turn out to be for the Andrei Rublev film. Apart from passing references to the original working title of The Passion According to Andrei, there is no significant independent WP:RS reference that even gives the separate plot of your article (underlying its lack of independent notability), to stop your edits being WP:OR; and which according to your own small edits, is almost identical anyway to the Andrei Rublev film. That is why what AndrewOne makes sense and is in line with WP:PAG. Britishfinance (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Criterion Collection is a reliable source for information on hundreds of films which they have released with useful liner notes and included booklets of critical essays. They are a standard reliable source of information used throughout Wikipedia for film articles. CodexJustin (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Yellow Pages (and many directories) are RS, but being listed in them does not mean notability. The Passion According to Andrei doesn't even get listed in Rotten Tomatoes (although Andrei Rublev does [2]). This is a non-notable working title of a more famous film and is therefore a Redirect to Andrei Rubliv. Britishfinance (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AndrewOne, an editor on the main Andrei Rublev (film) article, made the following helpful point on the Talk Page [3]. Britishfinance (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks for pinging me. WP:FILMPLOT reads, "The plot section describes the events of the original general release. Plot details in alternate versions released theatrically or on home media may be described in other sections if appropriately sourced." A separate article on The Passion According to Andrei is unwarranted, because it is currently too similar to the page Andrei Rublev (film) (and would likely remain too similar). I prefer the mere addition of a new section to Andrei Rublev (film). fer the mere addition of a new section to Andrei Rublev (film). AndrewOne (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)"[reply]

That note from WP:Filmplot only works for films released under the same name. In this case, the two separate films were released as separate films with separate titles in different production years. The 1966 film was banned in Soviet Russia and it was illegal to show this film thereafter in Soviet Russia. The other separate film in 1969 was released as legal to circulate in Soviet Russia thereafter. The editorial board of The Criterion Collection has now released these as two separate films and the two separate articles on Wikipedia are useful and based on a reliable source which is the editorial board of The Criterion Collection. CodexJustin (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But your article has an almost identical plot to the Andrei Rublev article (per the comparison tool above); and no significant RS discusses your article title as significant; whereas there are lots of significant RS on Andrei Rublev (which is why it is the only notable cut). You are trying to "contrive" a case of separate notability using your own OR (as demonstrated by your comments above), which are not grounded in any significant independent RS, or by your own very small unrefrenced edits to the duplicate article. Britishfinance (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article states the opposite to your comment. Its links to Martin Scorsese indicate extensive efforts on his part to make the 1966 version of "The Passion" available as a separate film. CodexJustin (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Andrei Rublev is one of the greatest films ever created. The Passion According to Andrei should be covered in the same article as Andrei Rublev (film), as no RS identifies it as being independently notable. I am mystified by CodexJustin's insistence on using Criterion Collection's release as a basis for saying that The Passion is independently notable, as a cursory glance at Citerion's database page for the film Andrei Rublev confirms that the two versions of the film are included in the same box set, with "The Passion" labeled as a "Special Feature" of the film. Moreover, the films clock in at 183 and 205 minutes respectively–I would suspect that any separation of the two films on separate discs has less to do with their independence and more to do with the physical limitations of how much video you can store in one disc. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Andrei Rublev is one of the greatest films ever created. Since it is among the greatest films special efforts should be taken to safeguard it from poor editing. The edits for the 1969 film "Andrei Rublev" should go into the Wikipedia article for "Andrei Rublev". Similarly, edits for the 1966 film "The Passion" should go into the Wikipedia article for "The Passion". They should not be mixed up which is what the current separation of the article safeguards against. Previously, Wikipedia editors were forcing edits into the single article for the film indiscriminately and erroneously when they viewed the 1966 film and had nowhere else to put their edits. Since the chapter headings for the two films do not match up, Wikipedia editors previously would start forcing their edits into the article for the wrong film because there was no other article to put their edits. Now that the two articles for the two films have been separated, edits for the 1969 "Andrei Rublev" film should go into "Andrei Rublev" article, while edits for the 1966 "The Passion" film should go into "The Passion" article. Now that the article have been split and they have different Plot sections with different chapter divisions, and now that the different years have been distinguished for the two films with their different titles, then they should be kept as separate articles. To delete one article in preference to the other article is to perpetuate indefinitely the old Wikipedia problem of editors forcing their edits into one article for two separate films from different years. Both articles should be kept in order for this longstanding Wikipedia editing problem not to perpetuate indefinitely. CodexJustin (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Clearly the same film, as can be seen by the virtual copying of the plot from the proposed target. This isn't even a close call. This is basically a "director's cut" of the classic film, with extra scenes thrown in. Indeed, this film was never actually released. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are two separate films with separate outlines, released in different years and having different numbers of chapters. As you state, the 1966 film "The Passion" was never released in Soviet Russia and it was illegal to distribute this film in Soviet Russia. The other 1969 film "Andrei Rublev" was released in Soviet Russia and was released internationally in 1969. The two separate films with separate titles should not be confused. Edits for the film from 1966 titled "The Passion" should go into the Wikipedia article for "The Passion". Edits for the 1969 film "Andrei Rublev" should go into the Wikipedia article for "Andrei Rublev" in order to avoid distorting the article. Keep both articles in order to disambiguate edits with clarity and without ambiguity. CodexJustin (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2019 (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.