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. There's pretty good consensus here that the topic is worthy of inclusion, but the particular article we have here now, needs a lot of work, possibly to the extent of WP:TNT. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film in Kansas City

[edit]

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

Seems to have a big COI, written in a promotional tone... TJH2018 talk 22:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given what comes up from a Google News search alone, the sources exist for an article with this title. But this isn't the article--the unsourced and promotional content can be deleted, and a fresh start needs to be made. There's no good original version to return to [1]. As such, this almost appears to qualify for speedy deletion as promotional from the beginning, more than a decade ago. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator may well be right about the COI, but we see content from a range of editors over many years -- some of it just driven by hometown boosterism. A lot of work has gone into this. And while there's a lot of unreferenced and possibly content, as noted, I'm sympathetic to the notion that Kansas City is or was an important culture center. I've added it to Category:Cinema by city. My inclination would be to WP:PRESERVE and tag for improvement -- or just improve, now. There's too much encyclopedic content to go in the Film Community section of the city's article. Despite whatever faults, editors have worked on this since 2005 to get it to where it is a well-written, if not well-referenced, article. I believe its deletion would be a net loss. Finally, let me point out to the nominator that COI and tone issues are not in themselves reasons to delete, per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Keep and preferably rename to Cinema of Kansas City. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename if needed especially if this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2016 (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/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Kansas City metropolitan area. The content is promotional and mostly unsourced, but I could probably source some of it, then move it to the main article, where it belongs. What makes Kansas City so special that its film industry should get an independent article full of unsourced promotion? If we were talking about New York or Vancouver, then I could at least understand the argument that it should have its own independent article. But if a dozen films get shot in some random city, does it automatically qualify for its own "Film in X" or "Cinema of X" article? I don't think it should, at least until these topics overwhelm the main article with sourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article itself is terrible, but the bones are there and even just based on a quick search I'd say the subject appears to be notable enough for a standalone article. With proper sourcing and a rewrite, this should be fine. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A consensus to keep has been established, although whether or not to merge, move, or simply leave as is has not established consensus yet. — Music1201 ^talk 22:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:49, 31 May 2016 (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.