Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinemia

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. Tone 18:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sinemia[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)

Article does not have significant and reliable media coverage Sherriswag (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Failure of WP:BEFORE; article clearly has many RS. I note the nom also removed two refs from Variety (magazine) before listing; something odd going on here. There have been issues with disruptive editing on this article in the past per Talk Page, which required Protection and blocking of an Editor. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article show that the subject does in fact have significant coverage, and references 2 and 3 (Forbes, Engadget) are reliable, independent sources in the reflist that prove this. The article should be kept from these two sources alone. Utopes (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2019 (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.