Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masters of Cinema

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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of Cinema (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)

While the previous AfD for this organisation closed as keep, I can see no indication there or elsewhere online that there has been sufficient reliable source coverage for it to be considered notable. Sam Walton (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clearly nothing to suggest even minimally better notability. FWIW, the 1st AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masters of cinema. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'd almost recommend WP:TNT-ing the article. This is as spammy as it gets. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is something to be said about the group's notability since there is frequent mentions of the DVD releases (albeit mostly through press releases) in places like the Boston Herald. I do note some false positives with links like this one, as TIFF had programming by this name that does not appear to be affiliated with the group. I'll keep digging. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The BH link is not about this group - I thought it might have been referring to the Hitchcock release, but it wasn't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I found two reviews for the DVDs [1], [2]. It is listed in this book by Scarecrow Press, but I don't know how useful that would be for notability given that it's in a link and there's no writeup about the group, just a list of websites with good site design. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Another warning of a false positive: Phaidon made a book series that also appears to be unrelated. I am finding some coverage of the DVD releases, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How are you not finding the reviews? Here's a load in the Guardian. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's a load in the Telegraph. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A different google search which brings up a load of reviews. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that there's a valid argument to be made to delete List of Masters of Cinema releases, as it's just a list page of releases. This is fairly indiscriminate and it's rare that we really need a full listing of DVD releases by a company. I don't know that we really need to merge much beyond the two DVD releases reviewed above, so I may just nominate this for deletion myself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've nominated it for deletion here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've cleaned the article up dramatically, removing the promotional puffery. I found some reviews for the company. Normally I would raise an eyebrow at using releases for already notable films, but the work done in the product line is specifically highlighted in some of the reviews so that should be enough to make them usable. It's not the strongest keep and I do still believe that the overall list page would warrant deletion, but offhand I think that the product line is safe. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable. The company's releases consistently place on the top of DVD and Blu-ray releases of the year lists.[3] Deleting this would be like deleting The Criterion Collection. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - After Tokyogirl79's work, it now is well referenced enough, and not promotional, to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 13 January 2016 (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.