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. Amidst all the sound and fury, the multitude of supporters of this site/company bring up some solid arguments that aren't refuted with regards to notability. Those arguing for deletion seem to be applying vague standards and merely asserting non-notability. The article isn't sourced, and WP:V is critical, but it seems WP:V could eventually be met, and no strong arguments have been presented to counter that. Mangojuicetalk 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of cinema[edit]

Contested prod. Article about a website with an Alexa rating over 750,000.[1] Only real claim to fame listed in the article is a collaboration with another website that has an Alexa rating over 500,000.[2] Delete unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of the article and to demonstrate compliance with WP:WEB. --Allen3 talk 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While that is an impressively sized list of links, when looking for reliable sources to build an article from it is necessary to locate sources that talk about the article subject instead of merely provide a mention of the subject. Source statements such as "Seminal site devoted to world cinema on DVD", "focuses on - but not limited to - the world's major directors", "A non-academic site with some excellent links, in particular to information about directors", or being listed among a group of favorite blogs do not typically provide the type of information needed to build an encyclopedic article. Do you have any sources that speak about Masters of Cinema instead of about the movies that the website/organization deals with? --Allen3 talk 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: However, the whole point is that MoC is not merely an "impressive sized list of links". Look in the top right hand corner of the MoC site. They have (in addition to their own cinephile DVD Series) four distinctive branch sites (painstakingly crafted over the last 8 years by the MoC creators themselves) all of which contain unique (i.e., not found anywhere else — where else can you find a decent photo of the reclusive Chris Marker?) content. The four sites are well-known to cinephiles world-wide: The MoC Tarkovsky Site, The MoC Bresson Site, The MoC Ozu Site, and the MoC Dreyer Site. These all have original content written by, among others, family and close friends of these four filmmakers, and they consistitute an invaluable resource to researchers (i.e., users of wikipedia). I think most of the drive-by shootings in this debate (does not apply to author Allen3) stem from a lack of (or a mere cursory) understanding of the whole MoC concept. The MoC Wikipedia page will obviously need to clarify things better, once it becomes a proper stub.--Stalker63 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:CORP guidelines would be the appropriate thing to gauge a claim for inclusion as a DVD label, if that helps.--Isotope23 17:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — see MoC mention in the current issue of CinemaScope vol 27 (MoC mention in an earlier Vol. 24 was referred to above). Hardly a mere "price listing", nor a simple "media reprint of press releases." Fwiw. --Stalker63 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why anyone thinks Alexa ratings are relevant to this conversation. Surely there are better things you people could be doing than going around and trying to get every article under some arbitrary alexa rating deleted? I can understand that the original version of the MoC article was quite bad--mostly copied from their "About" page, but I can hardly see what the fuss is about at this point. Jun-Dai 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, some people use Alexa rankings as a gauge of website notability or popularity. These are not however part of the core guidelines of WP:WEB, personally I don't put much stock in Alexa rankings, but this is a gathering of opinions and opinions will vary. All the fuss is about whether or not this entity, Masters of cinema, meets the accepted guidelines for inclusion here (WP:WEB and WP:CORP) or if they don't, what extinuating circumstances or compelling arguments exist that would make a strong case for why said guidelines should be ignored in this case. you may not agree with the guidelines Jun-Dai, but they are the guidelines that are in place here, so your energy would probably be best spent arguing how Masters of cinema meets one of those guidelines, or why we should not apply those guidelines to Masters of cinema. Hope that explains it a bit better.--Isotope23 19:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems to me that the citations listed above and below already qualify it under those criteria. At the very least, nobody has really tried to counter them. Given that everyone seems to be ignoring them, I wonder what the point in continuing further is? In any case, given that we have at least four distinct people supporting the article's continuing existence, what happens next? Do we delete it because we could fail to build a consensus for keeping it, or do we keep it because the delete-happy users in favor of deleting failed to drum up enough support against the article? I've never involved myself this much in the deletion process, so I'm curious to see where it goes. Jun-Dai 00:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for sake of clarity, let me just state I'm not an administrator here or anything and I'm merely stating my own opinion. If you are refering to the list of links Msbailey provided, Allen3 basically answered why that does not meet WP:WEB. The first criteria of WP:WEB states "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." a link to a site, or including the site in a list of seminal sites does not meet WP:WEB. Stalker63 also provided some links, but these were largely either links to sections of the Masters of Cinema site, or were external links to articles where Masters of Cinema were mentioned in passing, but the articles were not about Masters of Cinema. There has also been a claim made that MoC meets WP:CORP, but again meeting WP:CORP requires "multiple non-trivial published works" and I only see one external cite provided that has non-trivial coverage of one of their products. Where this goes from here depends on the closing admin. This is not a numerical vote, so the closing admin has to decide if there is consensus to keep, delete, or no consensus either way (no consensus defaults to keep). Generally, newly registered users and those who render opinions from IPs without creating a user have their opinions weighed less unless they make an actual argument based on the accepted guidelines and policies at Wikipedia. Basically, the admin is looking for a consensus, though I've seen cases where numerically the consensus was split, but the result was either outright keep or delete because one side did not make a compelling argument. Usually the whole process takes roughly 5 days from nomination. Hope that clears it up. Also Jun-Dai, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Calling Wikipedia editors who disagree with your position "delete-happy users" doesn't really add much to the debate on the content and, speaking personally, doesn't really entice me to continue take the time to try and explain the process to those unfamiliar with it...--Isotope23 12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the delete-happy comment, and am retracting it. I'm just bewildered by the concern for deleting the article. Also, Allen's rebuttal was posted after my response, and is the first time that anyone even acknowledged the citations.  :-( Jun-Dai 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, fair enough. I know how frustrating it can be to see an article you started/worked on (or about a subject you feel strongly about) brought for deletion and people argue to have it removed. Beyond that, Wikipedia guidelines, and processes seem fairly obtuse and arcane if you are not familiar with them, which doesn't make it any easier.--Isotope23 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, saying there are other DVD labels that justify inclusion of this one is a straw-man argument. Those DVD labels either meet WP:CORP criteria, or they too should be nominated for deletion. The presence of articles about similar items or entities does not condone inclusion of a specific item or entity. Each article has to stand on it's own, meet accepted policies, and be subject to accepted guidelines. The question isn't whether or not "Masters of Cinema" has "worth"; it is whether or not it meets WP:WEB or WP:CORP. There are tons of websites out there that to me personally (and a like-minded group of enthusiasts) have an immense amount of worth... but if I saw an article written about them on Wikipedia, I would sadly have to opine deletion becuase they cannot be proven to meet Wikipedia's accepted guidelines for having an article about the topic.--Isotope23 12:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I WOULD vote with my feet to keep this site. It is non-commercial in nature, maintained by the devotees of the Art known as Cinema and thus belongs to the general treasure of knowledge, rightfully here in wikipedia. I personally have seen entries in this encyclopedia with infinitely less content and shallow essence, so why the heck not a professional site (one of its kind) entirely devoted to the true masters of Cinema? IMO it would be a big loss to Wikipedia if you delete this article. Please consider keeping it. Thank u in advance.Eenspaaier 02:33, 3 August 2006 (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.
More