Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinema Today


 * 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 delete. Will usify on request Spartaz Humbug! 06:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Cinema Today

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reviewed under new article review/curation process. The topic is a web site. No indication of wp:notability. One of the 4 references is a directory type listing, and the other three are about other topics, not the subject of the article. Unable to find other suitable coverage. North8000 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I searched in Japanese but couldn’t find any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you search the Japanese Wiki or look for Japanese articles? lullabying (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I google searched the Japanese name and didn’t find anything discussing the topic in depth and independently. Mccapra (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Cinema Today is a reliable source for film news and box office data from Japan. It is frequently referenced by notable reliable soures like Anime News Network and The Japan Times. What else would you need to establish notability? Maestro2016 (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please link to some of the reliable independent sources that demonstrate this, as I evidently missed them in my search? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Anime News Network and Japan Times. ANN in particular frequently relies on Cinema Today for many of its box office numbers. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry but that’s nonsense. The first set of search results you’ve posted does indeed show that animenewsnetwork.com frequently cites Cinema Today. But I’ve worked my way down the list of alleged supporting sources in the Japan Today site and they’re nothing of the sort. In one instance there was a ref to Cinema Today. In the others there were just the words ‘cinema’ and ‘today’ collocated. Mccapra (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maestro2016, answering your question, to meet wp:notability (which is a requirement for existence as a separate article) it would need to either meet the requirements of wp:GNG or those of Notability (web).    Having reliable sources cover  Cinema Today in depth would count a lot towards both.  Having reliable sources refer to it doesn't.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: per nom by . lullabying (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 06:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC) *Delete as nominator. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Nominators do not vote as their nomination counts as a delete request unless they withdraw it, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to Closer. No RIS have been produced despite two relists. The only case made is that because Anime News Network uses Cinema Today as a source, it must be reliable. Mccapra (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This website is cited very often and seems to be a highly reliable source of information both on Wikipedia and for other entertainment websites like Entertainment Weekly and The Hollywood Reporter, but it does not appear to be notable itself. If the website has a parent company with an article I would recoment to redirect it there, if there is not then I would very sadly say delete.★Trekker (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This seems very close to discussions about authors and broadcasters. Articles can have non-notable subjects that have a ton of references but what is important is what those references say, not what the subject says. So, if the references are by the subject and not about the subject, they do not count for notability. This appears the case here. Ifnord (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to draft to allow for possible improvement. Per my comment at Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 64: "I tend to be of the opinion that any media which we cite as a reliable source should be notable enough to have an article (and, ideally, should have an article). How can we know that a source is reliable if there is not even enough information about it to meet our notability standards?" Continuing that thought, I think that we should either find sources providing this context for the subject in question, or deprecate its use as a source. BD2412  T 00:55, 7 June 2020 (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.