Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Masters of Cinema releases


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Masters of Cinema releases

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm nominating this in relation to the current AfD for Masters of Cinema. I have no true opinion at this point in time about MoC's notability, although I'm leaning towards a weak keep there.

As far as this page goes, this is ultimately a list of the DVD releases by MoC. It has no true encyclopedic value beyond being a database or catalog for their titles and can be considered WP:INDISCRIMINATE data. A search for sources for the MoC organization only brought up two reviews for their DVDs, Faust and Alfred Hitchcock. Normally I'd probably recommend a merge, but only about two of these titles really warrant inclusion or specific mention in the main article and there's already mention in the main article that the organization has a DVD line, so there's not really anything else to merge at this time. Given that there's little reason for a list of the releases on the main page (and it'd easily become unwieldy given the number of releases, especially if they continue to release), I'm arguing for this page to be outright deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a couple of dozen reviews for the releases in The Guardian and The Telegraph. There are hundreds more out there.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This just seems to be an advert for their releases using Amazon as a source.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The company's releases consistently place on the top of DVD and Blu-ray releases of the year lists.  Deleting this would be like deleting List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, there seems to be plenty of precedent for lists of this type for "boutique" type labels - see those included at Category:Home video lines and Category:Lists of films by home video label. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I'm not entirely sure that lists of this nature really belong on Wikipedia per WP:NOTDIR. Video releases aren't exactly rare nowadays and few of their releases are independently notable outside of the main organization, by which I mean that not many have actually received a review for the specific DVD/Blu-ray release. This can be argued as different from something that was released during a period in time when home releases were fairly rare. I also have to point out that there was a bit of trouble finding coverage for the main Masters of Cinema article itself - and that it was also clearly written to promote the organization and (more specifically) the video releases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't know how you are having trouble finding sources. I'm fairly sure every release will have multiple reviews, as they are a celebrated label with highly anticipated releases which often make the top releases of the year lists.  Searching for Eureka Masters of Cinema on Google gives 340,000 results.  Also, the Criterion list was a featured list candidate, so I'm sure that sets a precedent.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The amount of WP:GHITS doesn't mean much on Wikipedia, as many of those could be either junk hits or e-commerce sites. What you need here is a substantial amount of coverage for the releases to really show that there's any encyclopedic merit in us having a list of everything this company has released. As far as being a featured list candidate, being a candidate for something doesn't really mean that it would automatically belong on Wikipedia. I'll also note that the Criterion Collection is far, far more notable than this small, relatively unremarkable line of DVDs and that the list page has much more data in there to really justify an article and the DVDs in that set likely have enough coverage to really back up notability for a list page. I still maintain, however, that there's not much encyclopedic value in listing every release made by any particular company or product line. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just published yesterday Sight and Sound's The best DVDs and Blu-rays of 2015 has nearly every critic listing a Masters of Cinema release as one of their releases of the year for 2015. I don't think that would be the case if they truly were a "relatively unremarkable line of DVDs".  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  21:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Give it one last shot to gain a better consensus  Onel 5969  TT me 13:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 13:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * delete nonnotable rerelease stuff. No independent coverage of signidficnce. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How about "Eureka’s groundbreaking Masters Of Cinema label, often described as the UK’s answer to the Criterion imprint", or this from Home Cinema Choice? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * keep They can be defended as the UK/European equivalent of Criterion. They release definitive versions of established classics and more obscure titles. Releases often include for example multiple cuts/scores/frame ratios and new extra's and commentaries. They are highly esteemed and often feature in lists of best releases of the year  Holsheimer (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rob Sinden and Holsheimer. This is not an amateurish list, but one that required a considerable expenditure of time and effort, resulting in a well-organized compendium of key titles in world cinema, which are undoubtedly of considerable practical as well as personal value to anyone interested in film. The specific availability of these iconic productions, along with the chronology of their release and other details, more than justifies this list's continued existence. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 10:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Masters of Cinema do not rerelease stuff non-notably. They receive regular independant coverage, being in Sight & Sound, Whatculture, The Guardian, or HomeCinema Choice. They frequently end up in the top lists for best releases of the year (Sight & Sound, DVD Beaver, blu-ray.com). This list is the same type of list Criterion has of their releases, with release dates and video format availibility. This lists helps videophiles and cinephiles having a direct access to the release dates, the number of titles the label released and the ones that are OOP, allowing for an easy grasp of the size of the labels and for an easy comparison with other independant labels. They received specific coverage for their releases of Cabinet of Dr Caligari and Metropolis on Home Cinema Choice and MovieMail. The current main producer there has also been interviewed in Summer 2015 for a French website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EECE:FF70:DCA7:D658:C0B:985E (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2016 (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.