Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closed cinemas in Kingston upon Hull

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 keep. It appears as though this article has been vastly improved since it was nominated and therefore the deletion rationale provided is a bit outdated. There is also sufficient support for keeping the article as well from the looks of it. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed cinemas in Kingston upon Hull

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay, all taken from the same website. Orange Mike | Talk 01:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is impossible to prove a negative (ie: cinemas that are not in biz), and per nom. A bit of an indiscriminate list as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are serious weaknesses in this article. I'm not clear what is intended except to duplicate a list that already exists in a more useful form on the web. Keep on the basis of the helpful changes already made. ~~But w~~With respect to both the nominator and to the comment above, I'm not sure that the grounds for deletion are the correct ones. A great many articles in Wikipedia are founded initially on a single source and personal knowledge. Anyone writing an article about a location they know does and should draw on their own knowledge if only to ensure that they have a logical and coherent content. And contrary to the comment above, the information will almost certainly be verifiable even if not necessarily readily accessible. The topic could be notable in that there is a lot of interest in the history of cinema buildings in towns and cities in Britain, at least. But I would suggest to Elrooj that he or she expand on their comment on the talk page that the finished page is not what I intended and asks for advice. AJHingston (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added more information to start addressing the articles weaknesses. Just a start and is very much work in progress. More references now included. Hull, hell & happiness (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No satisfactory reason to delete is provided as essay format is expected of our articles and provision of a source is a good thing, not a bad. The article is capable of further improvement as the topic is notable and it is our editing policy to do so. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good reason to delete. The article needs some work doing on it but there are areas for expansion into a useful article. The National Picture House building is one notable entry that could be expanded on as it is thought to be the last remaining unchanged civilian building bombed in WW2. Keith D (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Excessive citations from one source and a number of subjective opinions, but if a list of cinemas in a town now would be considered encyclopaedic, then so would a list of former cinemas. There is a case for heavily pruning this article and merging it somewhere else, but it's not quite material for outright deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Sources certianly exist. There is Robert Curry "Last complete performance : in memory of Hull’s cinemas" book.©Geni 19:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that, initially, I could only find one major reference source. Other contributors/editors are now starting to correct that weakness. Today I came across, and added, a further reference source - "Social Institutions|British History Online" - which details more than the cinemas I had originally listed (from memory). Two printed/publishes works have been inserted into References. This is a work in progress. To Orange Mike, I would say that I began the entry and then realised I needed references - and found these were scarce. I repeat - it's my first attempt at creating an entry, but it is NOT all from one source.Elrooj (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. An article with local interest that can be considered to be encyclopaedic. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs some cleanup of style, and tidying of refs (have done a bit), but there's no valid reason to delete. PamD (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.