Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Moving Arts Film Journal

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 no consensus. Juliancolton (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Moving Arts Film Journal[edit]

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

Film journal with no claims nor evidence of notability. Edit history strongly suggests WP:COI editing from single purpose accounts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This film journal has plenty sources of notability. It has been cited by The St. Petersburg Times (Sept. 9, 2010 edition) and some the web's biggest sites such as Aint it Cool, i09 and Boing Boing. The journal is also prominent enough to receive press access to some of the world's most exclusive film festivals like the Toronto International Film Festival, the Berlinale and Cannes. These festivals require a web-based journalistic outlet to achieve international prominence with hundreds of thousands of monthly page views before granting such access. And many of The Moving Arts's film reviews are quoted in promotional materials of mainstream and indie films from all over the world. The journal's founder, Eric M. Armstrong is a prominent critic and a member of the Governing Committee of the Online Film Critics Society (the world's most prestigious organization of professional critics who publish their work online -- it's owned by Rotten Tomatoes). Perhaps this entry needs references but it certainly shouldn't be deleted. It's notability is quite easily verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarmas5 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that if you look at my contribution history on Wikipedia you'll see hundreds of valuable contributions to dozens of different articles on various subjects. I'm not sure why a reason for this article's deletion was "single purpose account." My history clearly contradicts this. Unless you're referring to some other account devoted to this journal? Either way the article in question can be verified with hardly any effort. It should stay. It should, however, be tagged as a short article and that its needs references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarmas5 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is so easy to verify this magazine's notability, then why don't you add the appropriate sources to the article so that we can close this AfD? But do read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:GNG first, please. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Plenty of legitimate, verifying sources have been added, as well as a references section. I think the tag can be removed now. Thanks!

Comment I don't see how any of those links indicate WP:WEB notability. They mention a specific article on the site, that's about it. Notability policies specifically state non-trivial coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really? Why would prominent sources like Turner Classic Movies and the St. Petersburg Times cover articles from the journal and publicize its greatest movies lists if it wasn't a notable source? Seems to me the answer is clear. It is notable...because prominent sources have, quite literally, noted it. And the WP:WEB article you referred me to contains nothing that would render this entry a candidate for deletion. Dozens of prominent filmmakers and studios have noted the journal, also. It's a well known source of news, journalism and essays in indie and academic circles, and somewhat well-known among casual film fans for its lists. Why aren't other online magazines subjected to this level scrutiny? Even much larger outlets like Slate.com don't provide the level of documentation you say is required. Comparable film journals like Senses of Cinema and Bright Lights Film Journal have zero verifying sources with no references and are allowed to remain. Seems like an open-and-shut case in favor of this entry. --Guitarmas5 (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, but I have to side with Ohnoitsjamie here. The sources provided fall far from establishing notability for this journal. The argument that other articles exist that are worse clearly falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (less reverently also known a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't DeleteWhat about the fact that imdb, the largest movie website in the world, uses The Moving Arts as an official resource for news? That's more than just trivially linking to articles. Imdb is the most notable movie site in existence, and they seem to think the journal is notable enough to use as a resource. Each news outlet they use to feed news onto their pages is handpicked for credibility, size of readership, reputation and notability.--Guitarmas5 (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems to me to be a case of a source being reliable for use on Wikipedia but not necessarily warranting its own encyclopedic entry. After all, we should be able to write about the source itself, not about how other sources have referenced it. The Wikipedia article makes broad and promotional-sounding statements ("the flagship artistic cinema publication of the Midwest"?) that need to be addressed if there is any notion of keeping it. I'll have to review guidelines for this kind of topic, and I'll be back later with a response. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The part of the entry that declares the journal as a flagship publication simply means that it's the only film journal of its kind that exists in the midwest. Perhaps that sentence should be altered to sound more benign and informational. But that seems like a notable fact in and of itself.--Guitarmas5 (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That it has notable contributors and is used by notable publications is sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having notable contributors and being itself authoritative enough to be cited by notable publications is sufficient reason to allow the article to remain and be improved over time and through regular editng. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:29, 4 April 2011 (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.