1362:
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."--
995:" 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 Knowledge. 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
490:
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 Knowledge 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, Knowledge 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
471:. 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 Knowledge page will obviously need to clarify things better, once it becomes a proper stub.--
88:
669:] 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 ,...), 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
1128:- 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
1202:. 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 Knowledge, I would sadly have to opine deletion becuase they cannot be proven to meet Knowledge's accepted guidelines for having an article about the topic.--
1033:, 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, Knowledge guidelines, and processes seem fairly obtuse and arcane if you are not familiar with them, which doesn't make it any easier.--
628:). 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. --
1193:
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
286:
A site doesn't have to be popular to be important (and the converse is true: popularity does not necessarily mean a site is important). Masters of cinema is well known within the cross-section of two groups: (1) film aficionados and scholars and (2) the web-savvy. Try googling on it and clicking on
1377:
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
1361:
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
895:
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
584:
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
489:
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
933:
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
1319:. 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
48:. 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
982:
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
233:
What does "contested prod" mean? This article describes what the "Masters of Cinema" website is, and the associated "Masters of Cinema Series" of DVDs. A famous boutique DVD label in the UK. What claims in the article require your verification? Why the mention of Alexa ratings?
1007:. Calling Knowledge 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...--
1145:, 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.--
924:, 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.--
1132:
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.
1378:
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
Knowledge if you delete this article. Please consider keeping it. Thank u in advance.
1223:
seems to have been given the green-light for hysterical reportage in a "fanboy" key is crazy. Are we really voting for which
Knowledge entries get to stay on the basis of their "popularity" with a mass audience? Shocking and disgusting.
450:
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
912:, 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 (
833:. 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"?--
415:
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?
1020:
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. :-(
1059:
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
673:, see his (I dare say) historically interesting letter . 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
1218:
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 Knowledge page, while something like
287:
various links amongst the results. In addition, they now have a series of DVDs that they collaborate on with Eureka (an indiciation of how seriously their site is taken), which, while not exactly rivalling
920:) 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
934:
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
1068:. 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 Knowledge page but which has been cited numerous times in the
562:
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
1303:: "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
1161:
see the worth of both the Masters of Cinema Series of DVDs and this entry at Knowledge from the information provided. There are numerous worthwhile profile entries of similar DVD labels (
812:. 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.
771:
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 Knowledge (
506:'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.
95:
399:
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 "
256:
Also see all of the policy and guideline pages that are hyperlinked in the above nomination. If you want to make an argument that this page should be kept, you'll need to
1169:, 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
954:, 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
1267:
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
942:
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.
641:
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
876:(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. --
370:. As a website and as a DVD producer, they have been cited several times in articles by Jonathan Rosenbaum, film critic for the Chicago Reader:
1245:
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.
291:
in popularity, do rival them in how seriously they are taken amongs collectors of both obscure and canonical artefacts of cinematic history.
522:
326:. You will also find them listed among the recommended internet sources for a film class at the University of North Carolina Wilmington:
908:, some people use Alexa rankings as a gauge of website notability or popularity. These are not however part of the core guidelines of
597:(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
318:
You will find the Masters of Cinema website listed on the Carleton College Cinema and Media Studies department's Research Guide here:
104:
1116:- No difference between this and the Criterion collection (which you're not considering deleting), so I see no reason to delete it.
659:
That the site may be considered encyclopaedically notable is borne out by the presence of the high profile names that go on record
972:"the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."
134:
64:
322:. You will also find them listed among the Film Reference Sources on the University of Toronto Cinema Studies Department pages:
693:
556:
This site has, over the years, been an integral part of my own education in art cinema. The Masters of Cinema (MoC) section on
17:
1189:, saying there are other DVD labels that justify inclusion of this one is a straw-man argument. Those DVD labels either meet
300:
Instead of giving vague and largely useless indications that there are sources out there somewhere ("googling and clicking"),
203:
Only real claim to fame listed in the article is a collaboration with another website that has an Alexa rating over 500,000.
347:
1354:
1291:
Allow me to transcribe the first few sentences in the opening paragraph of a featured review of MoC's recent release of
1157:
Agreed with Stalker63. Looking at all the comments on this page, it strikes me how sad it is that the Wiki-ites cannot
244:
120:
201:
204:
1104:- The products seem very professional and notable. A great source of information on professionals in the cinema.
896:
was quite bad--mostly copied from their "About" page, but I can hardly see what the fuss is about at this point.
499:
93:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
1396:
36:
1395:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1382:
1366:
1328:
1292:
1275:
1258:
1249:
1240:
1228:
1206:
1177:
1149:
1137:
1120:
1108:
1096:
1037:
1025:
1011:
946:
928:
900:
880:
860:
837:
825:
803:
796:
780:
762:
733:
705:
649:
633:
615:
604:
provided specially written input to the Masters of Cinema Bresson site (see their December 7, 2004 news update
592:
545:
518:
475:
422:
382:
350:. Among the film studies research sources for film studies on the University of New Hampshire Library's pages:
308:
295:
288:
278:
264:
251:
238:
227:
71:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
363:
574:
788:
498:
contestant who has no artistic value whatsoever, and has made no contribution to society at all. Or delete
346:. Among the internet resources on the Georgia State University Library's pages for film and video research:
343:
1065:
567:
257:
166:
1117:
856:
guidelines would be the appropriate thing to gauge a claim for inclusion as a DVD label, if that helps.--
514:
327:
1379:
1341:
1225:
681:
510:
150:
124:
1134:
979:
877:
685:
629:
472:
358:. They are also on the links page of Bright Lights Film Journal, another major online film journal:
1363:
1321:
1093:
955:
834:
800:
776:
689:
379:
354:. You will find them listed among the links on Senses of Cinema, a major online film journal here:
109:
1246:
1174:
235:
772:
542:
156:
87:
1353:. But to keep harping on the importance of the website, here is the recommendation made by the
625:
has provided MoC with purpose-taped video introductions to their Naked Island release (MoC #12
412:
319:
1092:, David Ehrenstein and Bill Krohn have all created exclusive content for MoC's DVD releases.--
77:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
664:
645:) that should get its own article. Also Knowledge is not a free space for promoting websites
1300:
1061:
784:
702:
557:
611:
provided a specially written essay for the booklet of their recent Rossellini DVD (MoC #10
409:
A non-academic site with some excellent links, in particular to information about directors
1264:
1237:
1105:
1077:
1000:
813:
750:
608:
404:
339:
61:
873:
660:
408:
348:
http://www.library.gsu.edu/research/resources.asp?ldID=75&guideID=0&resourceID=1
335:
323:
1350:
1272:
1255:
1203:
1199:
1190:
1146:
1089:
1069:
1034:
1008:
988:
984:
925:
917:
857:
853:
730:
351:
605:
442:
merely an "impressive sized list of links". Look in the top right hand corner of the
342:. On the Purdue University Film and Video Studies department's internet links pages:
1346:
1268:
1195:
1085:
1004:
975:
967:
963:
913:
909:
792:
768:
746:
726:
642:
601:
535:
AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
495:
275:
218:
1316:
1022:
996:
943:
921:
897:
674:
670:
618:, now a filmmaker, wrote a long essay for MoC for their Matsumoto release (MoC #32
503:
491:
396:
305:
292:
274:
Per nom, and contested prod means someone tagged it with prod, and it was removed.
261:
248:
210:
184:
172:
140:
745:
since its original nomination. It's now a whopping 886k, and clearly a failure of
375:
330:. As a selected web site on the Washington University in St. Louis library pages:
974:
a link to a site, or including the site in a list of seminal sites does not meet
119:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
1088:; scholars such as Tony Rayns, and Scott Eyman; and critics such as Kent Jones,
959:
722:
646:
577:
418:
223:
214:
53:
49:
400:
371:
367:
359:
260:
to demonstrate that the subject satisfies one or more of the WP:WEB criteria.
1349:, it should by crystal clear by now that they more than meet the criteria for
1162:
452:
1073:
374:. Their articles have been picked up by GreenCine Daily, a major film blog:
626:
619:
612:
598:
364:
http://scout.wisc.edu/Reports/ScoutReport/2004/scout-040507-geninterest.php
355:
200:
Contested prod. Article about a website with an Alexa rating over 750,000.
460:
331:
1334:
1312:
1081:
622:
586:
1220:
344:
http://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/idis/film-studies/links_internet.html
663:(right hand column), the frequent references to/reproductions of e.g.,
1194:
or not "Masters of Cinema" has "worth"; it is whether or not it meets
1166:
60:
be met, and no strong arguments have been presented to counter that.
328:
http://library.uncw.edu/web/research/subjects/film/guides/fst377.html
455:?) content. The four sites are well-known to cinephiles world-wide:
395:
While that is an impressively sized list of links, when looking for
362:. They were cited in the Internet Scout Report over two years ago:
1296:
1170:
443:
701:
Struck out the keep, as this is the second keep by Stalker63. --
595:
is to DVD Publishing, Masters of Cinema is to online DVD coverage
338:. On the Barnard College Library subject guide for film studies:
334:. As a research resource on the Wellesley College Library pages:
1389:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
464:
82:
468:
456:
405:
focuses on - but not limited to - the world's major directors
217:
the claims of the article and to demonstrate compliance with
1311:
with lesser known works by Dreyer (Michael), Renoir (Toni),
725:, no evidence has been provided to show how this site meets
560:
320:
http://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/cams/resources/research/
113:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
340:
http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/library/guides/film.htm
1345:. If MoC does not meet the Knowledge requirements for
541:
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
336:
http://www.wellesley.edu/Library/Research/cinema.html
324:
http://www.utoronto.ca/innis/library/cinemaother.html
352:
http://www.reference.unh.edu/guides/filmstudies.html
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
667:article (e.g., ). The MoC Tarkovsky bibliography
1399:). No further edits should be made to this page.
741:. Ironically enough, the alexa rating has gone
376:http://daily.greencine.com/archives/000267.html
366:. They were a Yahoo! pick over two years ago:
133:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
103:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
8:
401:Seminal site devoted to world cinema on DVD"
372:http://www.cinema-scope.com/cs24/col_dvd.htm
368:http://picks.yahoo.com/picks/i/20040403.html
360:http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/sources.html
576:). Chicago Sun-Times resident film critic
962:basically answered why that does not meet
872:— see MoC mention in the current issue of
107:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
1263:Obviously I can't speak for exactly what
1074:http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/feature.htm
438:However, the whole point is that MoC is
356:http://www.sensesofcinema.com/links.html
127:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
446:. They have (in addition to their own
332:http://library.wustl.edu/subjects/film/
1076:. As noted above, filmmakers such as
1064:, the film magazine published by the
993:"multiple non-trivial published works
378:. Plenty more where these came from.
7:
411:", or being listed among a group of
715:I see no reason to delete this page
24:
86:
799:, and so forth), why not MoC?--
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
566:(British Film Institute, 2005
1:
123:on the part of others and to
1355:American Library Association
245:Knowledge:Proposed deletion
1416:
1383:02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1367:16:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1276:12:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1259:12:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1254:"nn" means "not notable".
1250:08:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1241:06:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1229:06:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1207:12:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1178:06:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1150:12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1138:06:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1121:01:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1038:19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1026:19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1012:12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
947:00:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
881:03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
806:16:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
476:03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
423:00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
72:19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
52:is critical, but it seems
1315:(Scandal, The Idiot) and
1109:19:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
1097:18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
966:. The first criteria of
929:19:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
901:18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
861:17:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
838:16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
826:16:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
804:16:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
763:15:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
734:14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
706:04:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
650:01:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
634:20:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
573:(Pocket Essentials, 2006
546:17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
383:14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
309:09:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
296:15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
279:21:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
265:23:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
252:23:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
239:19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
228:18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
1392:Please do not modify it.
1329:South China Morning Post
1293:Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau
797:The Criterion Collection
781:Anchor Bay Entertainment
593:The Criterion Collection
589:Film Guide: They write:
289:The Criterion Collection
32:Please do not modify it.
616:Jim O'Rourke (musician)
165:; accounts blocked for
135:single-purpose accounts
105:policies and guidelines
1066:British Film Institute
789:Digiview Entertainment
457:The MoC Tarkovsky Site
569:), and Sean Martin's
1342:Liverpool Daily Post
1299:in the new issue of
1016:I apologize for the
987:, but again meeting
940:in favor of deleting
461:The MoC Bresson Site
1322:The Daily Telegraph
777:Image Entertainment
632:(Effete Film Snob)
500:Brian "Kato" Kaelin
302:please cite sources
117:by counting votes.
96:not a majority vote
1221:Ain't It Cool News
874:CinemaScope vol 27
773:Kino International
582:Siskel & Ebert
304:, as asked above.
1301:Sight & Sound
1130:discussion itself
1062:Sight & Sound
698:
684:comment added by
548:
527:
513:comment added by
198:
197:
194:
121:assume good faith
78:Masters of cinema
1407:
1394:
823:
818:
785:Blue Underground
760:
755:
697:
678:
571:Andrei Tarkovsky
558:Andrei Tarkovsky
540:
536:
526:
507:
465:The MoC Ozu Site
397:reliable sources
213:are provided to
211:reliable sources
192:
180:
164:
148:
129:
99:, but instead a
90:
83:
69:
34:
1415:
1414:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1397:deletion review
1390:
1078:Martin Scorsese
819:
814:
756:
751:
721:, as stated by
679:
609:Martin Scorsese
534:
508:
494:, the godawful
469:MoC Dreyer Site
182:
170:
154:
138:
125:sign your posts
81:
65:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1413:
1411:
1402:
1401:
1370:
1369:
1338:(London), and
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1231:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1181:
1180:
1152:
1140:
1123:
1118:85.210.180.115
1111:
1099:
1090:Phillip Lopate
1070:New York Times
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
999:, please read
931:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
864:
863:
843:
842:
841:
840:
828:
765:
736:
716:
710:
709:
708:
652:
636:
585:the acclaimed
550:
549:
539:
529:
528:
515:Pondbrilliance
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
428:
427:
426:
425:
413:favorite blogs
387:
386:
313:
312:
311:
281:
269:
268:
267:
254:
196:
195:
91:
80:
75:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1412:
1400:
1398:
1393:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1381:
1376:
1374:
1368:
1365:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1343:
1337:
1336:
1332:(Hong Kong),
1331:
1330:
1324:
1323:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1285:
1277:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1257:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1248:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1239:
1236:nn website.--
1235:
1232:
1230:
1227:
1222:
1217:
1214:
1213:
1208:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1192:
1188:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1179:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1148:
1144:
1141:
1139:
1136:
1131:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1110:
1107:
1103:
1100:
1098:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1086:Paul Schrader
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1058:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1039:
1036:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
950:
949:
948:
945:
941:
937:
932:
930:
927:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
904:
903:
902:
899:
894:
893:
892:
891:
882:
879:
875:
871:
868:
867:
866:
865:
862:
859:
855:
852:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
839:
836:
832:
829:
827:
824:
822:
817:
811:
808:
807:
805:
802:
798:
794:
793:Synapse Films
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
764:
761:
759:
754:
748:
744:
740:
737:
735:
732:
728:
724:
720:
717:
714:
711:
707:
704:
700:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
676:
672:
668:
666:
662:
658:
657:
653:
651:
648:
644:
640:
637:
635:
631:
627:
624:
620:
617:
613:
610:
607:). Director
606:
603:
602:Paul Schrader
599:
596:
594:
588:
583:
579:
575:
572:
568:
565:
564:Andrei Rublev
561:
559:
555:
552:
551:
547:
544:
543:Mailer Diablo
538:
537:
531:
530:
524:
520:
516:
512:
505:
501:
497:
496:American Idol
493:
488:
485:
484:
477:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
449:
445:
441:
437:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
424:
421:
420:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
391:
390:
389:
388:
384:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
314:
310:
307:
303:
299:
298:
297:
294:
290:
285:
282:
280:
277:
273:
270:
266:
263:
259:
255:
253:
250:
246:
242:
241:
240:
237:
232:
231:
230:
229:
226:
225:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
202:
190:
186:
178:
174:
168:
162:
158:
152:
146:
142:
136:
132:
128:
126:
122:
116:
112:
111:
106:
102:
98:
97:
92:
89:
85:
84:
79:
76:
74:
73:
70:
68:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1391:
1388:
1375:
1372:
1371:
1358:
1339:
1333:
1326:
1320:
1317:Nicholas Ray
1308:
1304:
1287:
1286:
1233:
1215:
1186:
1158:
1154:
1142:
1129:
1125:
1113:
1101:
1055:
1054:
1030:
1018:delete-happy
1017:
992:
971:
951:
939:
936:delete-happy
935:
905:
869:
850:
830:
820:
815:
809:
757:
752:
742:
738:
718:
712:
680:— Preceding
675:William Hung
671:Gary Indiana
655:
654:
638:
590:
581:
570:
563:
553:
533:
532:
509:— Preceding
504:O.J. Simpson
492:William Hung
486:
453:Chris Marker
447:
439:
435:
417:
392:
315:
301:
283:
271:
258:cite sources
222:
206:
199:
188:
176:
167:sockpuppetry
160:
149:; suspected
144:
130:
118:
114:
108:
100:
94:
66:
57:
45:
43:
31:
28:
767:Surely the
703:Koffieyahoo
600:. Director
578:Roger Ebert
1380:Eenspaaier
1325:(London),
1305:Metropolis
1226:Evillights
958:provided,
467:, and the
101:discussion
58:eventually
1357:in their
1273:Isotope23
1256:AndyJones
1204:Isotope23
1171:this page
1163:Criterion
1147:Isotope23
1135:Stalker63
1035:Isotope23
1009:Isotope23
991:requires
980:Stalker63
926:Isotope23
878:Stalker63
858:Isotope23
731:Isotope23
686:Stalker63
630:Stalker63
473:Stalker63
448:cinephile
157:canvassed
151:canvassed
110:consensus
1364:Msbailey
1335:Time Out
1313:Kurosawa
1106:GrapePie
1094:Msbailey
1082:Alex Cox
1001:WP:CIVIL
956:Msbailey
835:Msbailey
831:Question
801:Msbailey
694:contribs
682:unsigned
623:Alex Cox
587:Time Out
523:contribs
511:unsigned
444:MoC site
436:Comment:
393:Comment:
385:msbailey
380:Msbailey
276:tmopkisn
189:username
183:{{subst:
177:username
171:{{subst:
161:username
155:{{subst:
145:username
139:{{subst:
1351:WP:CORP
1309:Kwaidan
1247:Peerpee
1200:WP:CORP
1191:WP:CORP
1187:Comment
1175:Peerpee
1159:quickly
1143:Comment
1126:Apology
1031:Comment
1023:Jun-Dai
997:Jun-Dai
989:WP:CORP
985:WP:CORP
970:states
952:Comment
944:Jun-Dai
922:Jun-Dai
918:WP:CORP
906:Comment
898:Jun-Dai
870:Comment
854:WP:CORP
851:Comment
810:Comment
306:Uncle G
293:Jun-Dai
272:Delete.
262:Uncle G
249:Uncle G
236:Peerpee
209:unless
153:users:
1359:Choice
1347:WP:WEB
1269:WP:WEB
1234:Delete
1196:WP:WEB
1084:, and
1005:WP:AGF
976:WP:WEB
968:WP:WEB
964:WP:WEB
960:Allen3
938:users
914:WP:WEB
910:WP:WEB
769:WP:WEB
747:WP:WEB
739:Delete
727:WP:WEB
723:Bwithh
719:Delete
647:Bwithh
643:WP:WEB
639:Delete
419:Allen3
224:Allen3
219:WP:WEB
215:verify
207:Delete
56:could
1297:Faust
1288:Keep.
1056:Keep.
821:Chimp
816:alpha
758:Chimp
753:alpha
656:Keep.
591:What
554:KEEP.
487:KEEP.
316:Keep.
284:Keep.
131:Note:
67:juice
62:Mango
16:<
1373:KEEP
1340:The
1327:The
1307:and
1271:".--
1265:Peta
1238:Peta
1216:KEEP
1167:Kino
1155:KEEP
1114:Keep
1102:Keep
1003:and
916:and
743:down
713:Keep
690:talk
665:this
661:here
621:).
614:).
580:(of
519:talk
407:", "
243:See
221:. --
54:WP:V
50:WP:V
46:keep
1295:'s
1198:or
1072:):
978:.
729:.--
677:).
459:,
440:not
403:, "
185:csp
181:or
173:csm
141:spa
115:not
1224:--
1173:.
1165:,
1133:--
1080:,
795:,
791:,
787:,
783:,
779:,
775:,
749:.
696:)
692:•
525:)
521:•
502:,
463:,
416:--
247:.
191:}}
179:}}
169::
163:}}
147:}}
137::
688:(
517:(
193:.
187:|
175:|
159:|
143:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
