Draft:Winter in March
Puppet stop-motion short film
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Submission declined on 22 December 2025 by ReaderofthePack (talk).
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
| Submission declined on 18 December 2025 by Vestrian24Bio (talk). This draft's references do not show that the film meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for films. The draft requires either:
Declined by Vestrian24Bio 3 months ago.
or multiple published secondary sources that:
| |
| Submission declined on 10 December 2025 by TheInevitables (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:
Declined by TheInevitables 3 months ago.
| |
| Submission declined. The reviewer(s) who declined this submission will be listed in the page history. | |
Comment: This has way too many issues to accept at this point in time. Almost all of the sourcing is unusable for establishing notability. Much of it looks to be either interviews or paid articles. There are also database listings that also cannot establish notability. The film awards need to be verified. Offhand the only two that are likely usable are the Cannes and Philadelphia FF awards. Keep in mind that not all awards are usable. If something falls into the realm of a vanity award (where the award is all but guaranteed if you pay a fee), it's not going to be usable for establishing notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Be very, VERY careful with sourcing. Not all sourcing is usable. Sites that allow people to pay for coverage are almost never going to be usable. Paid articles are almost always going to shower praise upon the topic and because they didn't write about the film on their own accord, it can't be used to establish notability. What is needed for notability is coverage in places that weren't paid to cover the movie. Sites that do sponsored posts are almost never going to be usable as a source. There are some very, very rare exceptions, but those are going to be supremely major, notable outlets on par with the New York Times. Even then, those outlets will need to clearly mark sponsored posts as sponsored. To this end, Zippy Frames, Stop Motion Magazine, and Cartoon Brew both accept pay in exchange for an article. Neither Zippy Frames nor SMM clearly mark their articles as sponsored, which pretty much invalidates them as a source. Press releases and interviews are both going to be considered WP:PRIMARY sources, regardless of where they're posted. So even if London Cult would be considered usable, it's still a primary source because of the interview. Same goes for Cartoon Contender, since it's also an interview. Baltic Film Magazine offhand looks to be good. I'd need to delve more deeply into the awards, but offhand this doesn't look to pass NFILM. I'm also concerned at the potential that this used AI for the writing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:58, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Avoid using sourcing that isn't about the film at all. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the film's association with notable people or businesses. I also ran into an issue where the sourcing doesn't really back up the claims being made. For example, the alumni site doesn't really back up anything other than the fact that the director attended. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Avoid using databases as sources. They're considered to be routine and cannot establish notability. Instead, look for independent, reliable and secondary sources that also contain the information. Using databases as sources in an article can also make it seem like you're trying to stuff the sources to make it seem more notable, which backfires when noticed. It's better to have an article with a few reliable, good sources than dozens of mediocre or unusable ones.I'm going to try and do some cleanup here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: This needs definite trimming. First off, only include information on the cast and crew as it applies to the film. The director's past films and education is kind of irrelevant here. If any of that does directly play into the work beyond the typical "learning from past work" stuff, it needs to be outright framed as such. The media coverage section needs to be completely reworked. It's generally assumed that a film will gain coverage, so there's no need to have a section listing the various places that have covered the film. Instead any usable sources should be worked into production, release, and reception sections. Just saying "X, Y, Z outlet covered the film" isn't really informative - it's also not a guarantee that the coverage is usable to establish notability. A passing, WP:TRIVIAL mention won't give notability, for example. The awards need to be reviewed. Not all awards count towards notability on Wikipedia. If the festival isn't notable, then odds are that the award won't be either. Awards sections should be limited to those awards that are notable and can count towards notability. Part of the reason for this is just brevity's sake, but another reason is that listing a ton of non-notable awards can actually make a film seem less notable rather than more. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: In accordance with Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, I disclose that I have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of this article. KKibus (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Winter in March is a 2025 stop-motion puppet short film directed by Natalia Mirzoyan. The film follows a young Russian couple who decide to emigrate to Georgia after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
About
Winter in March had its world premiere in May 2025 in the Festival de Cannes La Cinef section, where it won the 3rd prize (ex aequo)[1] and later on won Heart of Sarajevo award for Best Short Film which made it eligible for Oscar consideration.[2]
Baltic Film Magazine published an article on Winter in March, discussing the film’s narrative, stop-motion technique and international co-production (pp. 16–20).[3]
Production
Mirzoyan began working on Winter in March in 2023, while she was studying at the Estonian Academy of Arts.[4] The film is produced by the Estonian company Rebel Frame in collaboration with ArtStep-studio, the Estonian Academy of Arts, Black Boat Pictures, and White Boat Pictures. Evgeny Fedorov of Tequilajazzz provided the film's music.[5]
Synopsis
When Russia invades Ukraine, Kirill and Dasha, a couple from Saint Petersburg, feel guilt and sorrow for the war they do not support. While Dasha finds strength to protest, Kirill withdraws into himself, falling deeper into depression. Feeling that they no longer have a place in Russia, they decide to emigrate to Georgia. Their journey is presented in a metaphorical environment referencing themes of war and displacement. The film depicts their journey near the Russian-Ukrainian border, showing symbolic imagery related to the conflict. Meanwhile, their fellow travelers don’t seem to notice anything strange. Their greatest fear—being separated at the border—catches up with them from an unexpected angle.
Accolads
| Festival | Award | Year | Country |
|---|---|---|---|
| Festival de Cannes | 3rd Prize La Cinef (ex aequo)[1] | 2025 | France |
| Sarajevo Film Festival | Heart of Sarajevo award for Best Short Film[2] | 2025 | Bosnia and Herzegovina |
| Philadelphia Film Festival | Honorable Mention for Best Short Film[6] | 2025 | USA |
| Animateka | Jury Grand Prix[7] | 2025 | Slovenia |
or multiple published secondary sources that:
- provide significant coverage: discuss the film in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
- are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
- are independent: not connected to the film, such as press releases, the studio's own website, or sponsored content.
Please add references that meet these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.