Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cine TAM

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. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cine TAM

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

There is absolutely no evidence that this is notable. Unless this theater has become some kind of local icon (which, because I do not read Portugese, I cannot determine from sources), there is no reason for it to have its own article. As an example, consider Regal Entertainment Group, which is definitely notable. But do we have an article for every one of their movie theaters--despite the fact that most are likely to have some kind of local newspaper coverage? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - TallNapoleon, Cine TAM is one entity with one theater; it is owned by the TAM Airlines company. Regal Entertainment is one entity with multiple locations across the United States. Both articles cover the entities; it is that there are no individual articles for all of Regal's locations.
- Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) says: "Many companies have chains of local stores or franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable—for instance, your local McDonald's. Since there is generally very little to say about individual stores or franchises that isn't true for the chain in general, we should not have articles on such individual stores." - But Cine TAM is about the theater company itself and its single (one) theater together. If this becomes a chain or if it was a chain "Cine TAM" would be about the firm in general. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a reminder the notability of companies page says: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content." - I have found Brazilian newspaper sources covering Cine TAM, so this is why I say that it is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company is notable Special K(KoЯn flakes) 08:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is this particular cinema? TallNapoleon (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cinema company operates one cinema; the cinema company is notable, and this article is about both the cinema company and its sole cinema. If the company operated multiple cinemas the article would state what is common in those cinemas. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I live in São Paulo, Brazil, and this teather is notable in my city. This article also include reliable third party sources. I don't see any problems. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe most shopping malls in Brazil have a movie theater from different companies like Cinemark, United Cinemas International or any other. This theatre has nothing special, there are thousands of movie theatres like those in São Paulo. Also, there's no article on pt-wiki. If it was a company with theatres in several malls I believe it would be notable as a company. But it is limited to only one mall. Maybe merge to TAM Airlines. Tosqueira (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tosqeira, do the other theaters that are not a part of Cinemark, UCI, etc. have articles in third party sources written about them? That is the criterion of the notability guideline I speak of above. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: a movie theater opening is often big news, locally, so yes, there probably WOULD be third party coverage of them. That doesn't mean that every local theater belongs on Wikipedia. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2008 (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.