Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingmar Bergman's 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. czar 02:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ingmar Bergman's Cinema[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)

Non notable collection of dvds. Fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the ‘Ingmar Bergman’s Cinema’ box set is a notable release.

I find it interesting that music releases, particularly box sets and collections, are deemed worthy of entries on Wikipedia, yet film collections, especially those of note such as this one, are still seen as ‘unremarkable’.

This box set is the most comprehensive collection of films by Ingmar Bergman, undoubtedly one of the most important and influential film directors in cinema history. The release celebrates his centenary.

In addition to the films, the set includes hours of supplementary material, and a 248-page book of critical essays on the filmmaker and his work. Again, I believe that a comprehensive set such as this one is worthy of an article on Wikipedia.

I believe the deletion of this article would do nothing other than to highlight the narrow mindedness of those seeking its deletion. Box sets for musical artists are given space on Wikipedia, even if they are nothing more than repackaged albums (for which there are already articles), yet an exhaustive, restored collection of cinematic works collected with a vast amount of additional research materials, is deemed unworthy of an entry.

Although the article requires more work, I think that it has a place on Wikipedia. To remove it would only prove once again that Wikipedia is not only lacking in adequate articles on film and film-related releases, but that it cannot be deemed comprehensive when it comes to matters of the arts. JorgeWalsh1994 (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My original instinct was the opposite, being a dyed-in-the-wool deletionist, but it turns out this has been reviewed by The New York Times, Vanity Fair, The Wall Street Journal, and others. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike most of the awful 'studio puts a fancy banner around DVDs they need to clear out at the Family Dollar and calls it the "Revolution Studios Zirconia Series"' collection articles we've had and deleted in the past, this ain't that definition. This isn't non-notable in the least as an authorized Criterion Collection project that probably took years to put together for film collectors to savor and gets plenty of film press notice. Nom would do well to do some more WP:BEFORE about projects like these (and well-known film figures) before heading to AfD in the future. Nate • (chatter) 19:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as does have significant coverage reviews in multiple reliable sources and seems to be of interest because it includes multiple new documentaries on the cast and crew and a new 248 page book of essays, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JorgeWalsh1994, Clarityfiend, Nate and Atlantic306. Indisputably notable collection. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:11, 10 December 2018 (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.