Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Cinema History


 * 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.  So Why  08:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

New Cinema History

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This seems to be about a term used by one writer, referenced only to his work. It shouldn't be a standalone article unless it meets WP:GNG Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: I am not seeing the substantial coverage independent of Maltby which would be needed for an article. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Once again I see people arguing in a deletion discussion that there's no coverage of a topic, and then I search and find... There are academic articles about New Cinema History here. It features in the Oxford Dictionary of Film Studies (although New Film History is the main title with New Cinema History an alternative). Richard Maltby probably is notable himself per WP:PROF as holder of a named professorship at a reasonably distinguished institution (Flinders Uni). His best known book, Hollywood Cinema, was published in 1995 so there's a lack of reviews online, though he seems widely cited. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a suitable sourced stub with thanks for the research by showing coverage enough for a stub. Kudos.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete There is not the depth of sources using and discussing this term that we need to justify having an article on a neologism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete still basically a "one person" usage, the sources cited by Colapeninsula are by Daniel Biltereyst himself or are derivative because they are reviewing his and Malthy's book. --Bejnar (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2017 (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.