Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masters of Cinema (2nd nomination)

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 as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion from the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of Cinema[edit]

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

No indication of notability. A single refernce to a low-profile online-only "trade magazine". The content is spammy. My searches have found numerous blogs but little of any value for Wikipedia's purposes. If the page is deleted, List of Masters of Cinema releases should be deleted along with it. Huon (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the article had previously been nominated for deletion in 2015. Tokyogirl79 cleaned it up at that time, but even after that cleanup the only source for the prose of the article was the company's own website. By now the article is in no better shape, arguably worse. I would take that as an indication that significant coverage of the series itself simply does not exist and still think the article should be deleted. Huon (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per last nomination. Clearly notable. The company's releases consistently place on the top of DVD and Blu-ray releases of the year lists.[1] Deleting this would be like deleting The Criterion Collection. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some coverage: [2][3][4]. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The releases of this company are highly regarded and are often among the top ten lists at the end of the year[5][6][7][8]Holsheimer (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have had a look at the presented sources, and to me those seem to be mostly passing mentions along the lines of "both BFI and Eureka/Masters of Cinema have had brilliant years", with few details. I (obviously) have not checked all the Google results, but from those I looked at, I rather doubt those are any better. Lots of passing mentions do not make an encyclopedia article. If Rob Sinden and Holsheimer disagree, I'd ask them to improve the article based on the sources they present here - that will prove difficult. Huon (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've started to rewrite the article, to make it more in line with the likes of Arrow Films, The Criterion Collection, Eclipse. I will continue working on it.Holsheimer (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been expanded and referenced post-nomination. Company has coverage in numerous sources, clear notability. Dcfc1988 (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2017 (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.