Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masters of cinema

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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)

[edit] Masters of cinema

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

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)

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)
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)
  • KEEP. This is one of the most valuable sources for cinema on the web. It offers not only intelligent, thoughtful analysis of great directors (such as Tarkovsky, Dreyer, Ozu, and Bresson), but also is a invaluable source of DVD information. This site talks about discs from all around the globe, not just releases in North America. As cited before, Bright Lights Film Journal and the Chicago Reader have linked this website because of its very well researched information. I really don't understand why this website is scheduled for deletion. It's a real website that has been in existence for years, dedicated to those who take film/cinema seriously. I think that Wikipedia can save itself a lot of time by leaving this page alone, when there are much more egregious violations out there. I was at a comedy club recently, and a comic told a story about how he created his own page here (which, Wikipedia decided to delete). The Masters of Cinema website contributes a great deal to the world of film. If people really wish for things to delete, perhaps they should delete people like William Hung, the godawful American Idol contestant who has no artistic value whatsoever, and has made no contribution to society at all. Or delete Brian "Kato" Kaelin, O.J. Simpson's infamous houseguest, who aside from living at OJ's house at the time of OJ's murder trial, hasn't done anything worthwhile before, during, or after Simpson's trial for murder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pondbrilliance (talk • contribs).
 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)
  • KEEP. This site has, over the years, been an integral part of my own education in art cinema. The Masters of Cinema (MoC) section on Andrei Tarkovsky [3] is second to none and has been acknowledged in the foreword (or acknowledgment sections) of every recent scholarly work on Andrei Tarkovsky, just two examples being Robert Bird's excellent Andrei Rublev (British Film Institute, 2005 [4]), and Sean Martin's Andrei Tarkovsky (Pocket Essentials, 2006 [5]). Chicago Sun-Times resident film critic Roger Ebert (of Siskel & Ebert fame) has also provided fascinating input especially written for this MoC site (see their Topics' section). The Masters of Cinema main site as well as their "micro-sites" ("micro" being somewhat of a misnomer) on Ozu, Dreyer, Tarkovsky, and Bresson are prominently featured in the latest edition of the acclaimed Time Out Film Guide: They write: What The Criterion Collection is to DVD Publishing, Masters of Cinema is to online DVD coverage (this was written just before MoC got into DVD publishing as well). Check it out for yourself next time you're at your local bookstore [6]. Director Paul Schrader provided specially written input to the Masters of Cinema Bresson site (see their December 7, 2004 news update [7]). Director Martin Scorsese provided a specially written essay for the booklet of their recent Rossellini DVD (MoC #10 [8]). Jim O'Rourke (musician), now a filmmaker, wrote a long essay for MoC for their Matsumoto release (MoC #32 [9]). Alex Cox has provided MoC with purpose-taped video introductions to their Naked Island release (MoC #12 [10]). And the list goes on... I would go as far as saying that it would be a grave mistake to delete this page, as it is such an incredibly valuable resource to scholars, filmmakers, and fans alike. I have no idea whatsoever what an "Alexa rating" is, but I highly doubt she's a patron of the Fine Arts. --Stalker63 (Effete Film Snob) 20:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. A good website which would be great as a link resource for various film articles. But this is not an encyclopedically notable website (fails WP:WEB) that should get its own article. Also Wikipedia is not a free space for promoting websites Bwithh 01:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. That the site may be considered encyclopaedically notable is borne out by the presence of the high profile names that go on record here (right hand column), the frequent references to/reproductions of e.g., this article (e.g., [here]). The MoC Tarkovsky bibliography [[11]] is arguably the largest in existence and is used as a standard reference by the authors referred to above (Martin, Bird) and others (such as Milos Frys in his latest tome www.tarkovskij.wz.cz and [Michael McCormick],...), as well as by film school students around the world (if we are to believe the readers' letters occasionally published on their site). The MoC Bresson site caught the attention of Gary Indiana, see his (I dare say) historically interesting letter [here]. Whatever its failings, there certainly is no lack of encyclopedic value, in my mind. MoC has turned into a bit of a "phenomenon" (l will resist comparisons to William Hung). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stalker63 (talk • contribs).
    • Struck out the keep, as this is the second keep by Stalker63. -- Koffieyahoo 04:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason to delete this page
  • Delete, as stated by Bwithh, no evidence has been provided to show how this site meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ironically enough, the alexa rating has gone down since its original nomination. It's now a whopping 886k, and clearly a failure of WP:WEB. alphaChimp laudare 15:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Surely the WP:WEB should not be the only criterion for evaluation of this entry. MoC is not only a website but also a DVD label. If entries for other DVD labels are allowed to remain on Wikipedia (Kino International, Image Entertainment, Anchor Bay Entertainment, Blue Underground, Digiview Entertainment, Synapse Films, The Criterion Collection, and so forth), why not MoC?--Msbailey 16:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 16:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. I'm not stopping you from bringing them to AfD. My guess is that they are sufficiently notable to merit inclusion, but you're always welcome to express your dissenting opinion. alphaChimp laudare 16:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    Question. Well, instead of arguing for the deletion of every other entry on a DVD label as well, how can I go about arguing for keeping this particular entry on the basis of MoC being "sufficiently notable to merit inclusion"?--Msbailey 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Keep. Thank you, Isotope23, that does help. If one looks at MoC as a DVD label (not just as a website), one will see that they are, in fact, highly notable. Several of their DVDs have been featured as 'DVD of the Month' in Sight & Sound, the film magazine published by the British Film Institute. Their DVDs often show up as 'DVD of the Month' and in best-of-year polls on DVD Beaver (a website with a low Alexa rating and no Wikipedia page but which has been cited numerous times in the New York Times): http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/feature.htm. As noted above, filmmakers such as Martin Scorsese, Alex Cox, and Paul Schrader; scholars such as Tony Rayns, and Scott Eyman; and critics such as Kent Jones, Phillip Lopate, David Ehrenstein and Bill Krohn have all created exclusive content for MoC's DVD releases.--Msbailey 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The products seem very professional and notable. A great source of information on professionals in the cinema. GrapePie 19:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - No difference between this and the Criterion collection (which you're not considering deleting), so I see no reason to delete it.85.210.180.115 01:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Apology - I forgot in my haste to click the "sign it" button on my last entry, as I was responding directly to a response to my already signed entry. I was not aware that there is a limit of one "keep" per person. If "this is not a vote" (as stated in the box at the top), why was my "keep" overstricken, as if it was a vote? I believe, personally, that the discussion itself has established that there is no justifiable reason to delete the page from the encyclopaedia. There are many good, considered reasons brought forward for keeping it, and mostly (not exclusively) a few pat responses and glib formal comments brought against. --Stalker63 06:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, It's a courtesy consideration. This isn't a vote, but it is an exercise in consensus building and multiple keeps or deletes make it harder on the closing admin to sift through who is an original contributor to the discussion, especially in very long debates.--Isotope23 12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP Agreed with Stalker63. Looking at all the comments on this page, it strikes me how sad it is that the Wiki-ites cannot quickly see the worth of both the Masters of Cinema Series of DVDs and this entry at Wikipedia from the information provided. There are numerous worthwhile profile entries of similar DVD labels (Criterion, Kino, etc.) which by virtue of their presence condone the "Masters of Cinema" entry. Seeing as most of you have a lot of time on your hands, may I humbly suggest a read of this page. Peerpee 06:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • KEEP This entire debate is baffling by any standard. Why the Masters of Cinema site -- a storehouse of scholarly articles about the cinema, and more -- has to fight for retention of a Wikipedia page, while something like Ain't It Cool News seems to have been given the green-light for hysterical reportage in a "fanboy" key is crazy. Are we really voting for which Wikipedia entries get to stay on the basis of their "popularity" with a mass audience? Shocking and disgusting. --Evillights 06:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn website.--Peta 06:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Care to expound, Petaholmes? What does "nn website" mean? I've spent five minutes looking for what it might mean, and haven't found anything. Peerpee 08:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • "nn" means "not notable". AndyJones 12:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Obviously I can't speak for exactly what Peta meant in this particular instance, but some participants use "nn website" (non-notable website as AndyJones stated above) as an alternate term for "does not meet WP:WEB".--Isotope23 12:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Allow me to transcribe the first few sentences in the opening paragraph of a featured review of MoC's recent release of Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau's Faust in the new issue of Sight & Sound: "During the last two years, Masters of Cinema has established a reputation as one of the UK's most enlightened DVD labels, assembling an eclectic catalogue which mixes such classics as Metropolis and Kwaidan with lesser known works by Dreyer (Michael), Renoir (Toni), Kurosawa (Scandal, The Idiot) and Nicholas Ray. Like Criterion in the US, MoC handles each title with loving care, creating some remarkable extras (including lavishly produced sleeve notes) and, more importantly, ensuring that its transfers are as complete as possible." A cursory search in Lexis Nexis shows positive mentions of MoC's DVDs in The Daily Telegraph (London), The South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), Time Out (London), and The Liverpool Daily Post. If MoC does not meet the Wikipedia requirements for WP:WEB, it should by crystal clear by now that they more than meet the criteria for WP:CORP. But to keep harping on the importance of the website, here is the recommendation made by the American Library Association in their Choice magazine which highlights recommended books and Web sites for libraries: "Graphically attractive, informative, and user friendly, this invaluable Web site focuses on but is not limited to the work of major world directors. It is divided into numerous sections, the most significant of which are "The News Fountain," which runs down the left side of the main page and provides current news on directors and films (past and present), releases of historical and critically important DVDs, awards, and tributes. Down the center of the page is a month-by-month calendar of upcoming DVD releases of major films. The site's growing library of recent articles on international cinema is evident on the right side of the home page; there are links to articles and a list of more than 100 directors also included with links to at least a biographical essay and, at most, a Web site devoted to that director. This section also offers useful links to dealers in everything from DVDs and video to film posters; critical reviews; online writing support for budding screenwriters; and film publications. The particular appeal of this site is its commitment to world cinema-there is a good balance of international film and US movies, with overall emphasis on the achievements of the filmmakers and the films themselves. Summing Up: Essential. All film collections. August 2005."--Msbailey 16:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Masters_of_cinema_f513.html"