221:. The journal is also prominent enough to receive press access to some of the world's most exclusive film festivals like the Toronto International Film Festival, the Berlinale and Cannes. These festivals require a web-based journalistic outlet to achieve international prominence with hundreds of thousands of monthly page views before granting such access. And many of The Moving Arts's film reviews are quoted in promotional materials of mainstream and indie films from all over the world. The journal's founder, Eric M. Armstrong is a prominent critic and a member of the Governing Committee of the Online Film Critics Society (the world's most prestigious organization of professional critics who publish their work online -- it's owned by Rotten Tomatoes). Perhaps this entry needs references but it certainly shouldn't be deleted. It's notability is quite easily verified.
408:, the largest movie website in the world, uses The Moving Arts as an official resource for news? That's more than just trivially linking to articles. Imdb is the most notable movie site in existence, and they seem to think the journal is notable enough to use as a resource. Each news outlet they use to feed news onto their pages is handpicked for credibility, size of readership, reputation and notability.--
350:
article you referred me to contains nothing that would render this entry a candidate for deletion. Dozens of prominent filmmakers and studios have noted the journal, also. It's a well known source of news, journalism and essays in indie and academic circles, and somewhat well-known among casual film
248:
It should also be noted that if you look at my contribution history on
Knowledge (XXG) you'll see hundreds of valuable contributions to dozens of different articles on various subjects. I'm not sure why a reason for this article's deletion was "single purpose account." My history clearly contradicts
456:
the source itself, not about how other sources have referenced it. The
Knowledge (XXG) article makes broad and promotional-sounding statements ("the flagship artistic cinema publication of the Midwest"?) that need to be addressed if there is any notion of keeping it. I'll have to review guidelines
345:
Really? Why would prominent sources like Turner
Classic Movies and the St. Petersburg Times cover articles from the journal and publicize its greatest movies lists if it wasn't a notable source? Seems to me the answer is clear. It is notable...because prominent sources have, quite literally, noted
478:
The part of the entry that declares the journal as a flagship publication simply means that it's the only film journal of its kind that exists in the midwest. Perhaps that sentence should be altered to sound more benign and informational. But that seems like a notable fact in and of
249:
this. Unless you're referring to some other account devoted to this journal? Either way the article in question can be verified with hardly any effort. It should stay. It should, however, be tagged as a short article and that its needs references.
154:
351:
fans for its lists. Why aren't other online magazines subjected to this level scrutiny? Even much larger outlets like Slate.com don't provide the level of documentation you say is required. Comparable film journals like
595:
having notable contributors and being itself authoritative enough to be cited by notable publications is sufficient reason to allow the article to remain and be improved over time and through regular editng.
378:
I'm sorry, but I have to side with
Ohnoitsjamie here. The sources provided fall far from establishing notability for this journal. The argument that other articles exist that are worse clearly falls under
148:
452:
This seems to me to be a case of a source being reliable for use on
Knowledge (XXG) but not necessarily warranting its own encyclopedic entry. After all, we should be able to write
115:
88:
83:
92:
209:
This film journal has plenty sources of notability. It has been cited by The St. Petersburg Times (Sept. 9, 2010 edition) and some the web's biggest sites such as
426:
282:
If it is so easy to verify this magazine's notability, then why don't you add the appropriate sources to the article so that we can close this AfD? But do read
75:
559:
520:
312:
Done. Plenty of legitimate, verifying sources have been added, as well as a references section. I think the tag can be removed now. Thanks!
169:
136:
214:
359:
have zero verifying sources with no references and are allowed to remain. Seems like an open-and-shut case in favor of this entry. --
17:
79:
265:
237:
608:
587:
565:
526:
488:
470:
441:
417:
396:
368:
337:
303:
269:
241:
204:
130:
57:
380:
126:
71:
63:
623:
384:
36:
176:
466:
356:
322:
notability. They mention a specific article on the site, that's about it. Notability policies specifically state
605:
622:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
554:
515:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
253:
225:
334:
201:
142:
53:
598:
484:
413:
364:
261:
233:
576:
That it has notable contributors and is used by notable publications is sufficient for notability
549:
546:
510:
507:
162:
537:
498:
437:
328:
195:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
218:
392:
352:
299:
347:
319:
291:
190:
186:
480:
409:
360:
257:
229:
283:
462:
185:
Film journal with no claims nor evidence of notability. Edit history strongly suggests
287:
583:
433:
109:
388:
295:
540:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
501:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
458:
578:
405:
210:
616:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
457:
for this kind of topic, and I'll be back later with a response.
105:
101:
97:
161:
545:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
506:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
175:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
626:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
425:Note: This debate has been included in the
318:I don't see how any of those links indicate
424:
427:list of Film-related deletion discussions
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
383:(less reverently also known a
1:
72:The Moving Arts Film Journal
64:The Moving Arts Film Journal
643:
588:21:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
566:10:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
527:06:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
489:05:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
471:22:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
442:22:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
418:14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
397:02:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
369:23:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
357:Bright Lights Film Journal
338:22:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
304:20:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
270:19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
242:19:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
205:14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
609:03:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
404:What about the fact that
294:first, please. Thanks. --
58:01:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
619:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
191:single purpose accounts
381:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
385:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
44:The result was
568:
529:
444:
430:
273:
256:comment added by
245:
228:comment added by
634:
621:
601:
562:
557:
552:
544:
542:
523:
518:
513:
505:
503:
431:
353:Senses of Cinema
332:
272:
250:
244:
222:
199:
180:
179:
165:
113:
95:
34:
642:
641:
637:
636:
635:
633:
632:
631:
630:
624:deletion review
617:
599:
560:
555:
550:
535:
521:
516:
511:
496:
330:
251:
223:
197:
122:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
640:
638:
629:
628:
612:
611:
590:
570:
569:
543:
532:
531:
530:
504:
493:
492:
491:
473:
446:
445:
421:
420:
399:
372:
371:
340:
313:
309:
308:
307:
306:
183:
182:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
639:
627:
625:
620:
614:
613:
610:
607:
606:
603:
602:
594:
591:
589:
585:
581:
580:
575:
572:
571:
567:
563:
558:
553:
548:
541:
539:
534:
533:
528:
524:
519:
514:
509:
502:
500:
495:
494:
490:
486:
482:
477:
474:
472:
468:
464:
460:
455:
451:
448:
447:
443:
439:
435:
428:
423:
422:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
400:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
377:
374:
373:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
349:
344:
341:
339:
336:
335:
333:
325:
321:
317:
314:
311:
310:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
220:
216:
212:
207:
206:
203:
202:
200:
192:
189:editing from
188:
178:
174:
171:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
128:
125:
124:Find sources:
120:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
618:
615:
604:
597:
592:
577:
573:
536:
497:
475:
453:
449:
402:Don't Delete
401:
375:
346:it. And the
342:
327:
323:
315:
279:
252:— Preceding
247:
224:— Preceding
211:Aint it Cool
208:
194:
184:
172:
166:
158:
151:
145:
139:
133:
123:
50:Juliancolton
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
324:non-trivial
219:Boing Boing
149:free images
481:Guitarmas5
410:Guitarmas5
361:Guitarmas5
326:coverage.
258:Guitarmas5
230:Guitarmas5
479:itself.--
434:• Gene93k
600:Schmidt,
538:Relisted
499:Relisted
476:Comment:
467:contribs
450:Comment:
331:itsJamie
266:contribs
254:unsigned
238:contribs
226:unsigned
198:itsJamie
116:View log
547:King of
508:King of
343:Comment
316:Comment
280:Comment
155:WP refs
143:scholar
89:protect
84:history
389:Crusio
376:Delete
348:WP:WEB
320:WP:WEB
296:Crusio
292:WP:GNG
290:, and
187:WP:COI
127:Google
93:delete
584:talk
454:about
284:WP:RS
170:JSTOR
131:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
593:Keep
574:Keep
485:talk
463:talk
459:Erik
438:talk
414:talk
406:imdb
393:talk
387:. --
365:talk
355:and
329:OhNo
300:talk
288:WP:V
262:talk
234:talk
217:and
196:OhNo
163:FENS
137:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
579:DGG
432:--
215:i09
177:TWL
114:– (
586:)
564:♠
525:♠
487:)
469:)
465:|
440:)
429:.
416:)
395:)
367:)
302:)
286:,
268:)
264:•
240:)
236:•
213:,
193:.
157:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
582:(
561:♣
556:♦
551:♥
522:♣
517:♦
512:♥
483:(
461:(
436:(
412:(
391:(
363:(
298:(
260:(
232:(
181:)
173:·
167:·
159:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
134:·
129:(
121:(
118:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.