Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cine film

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The result was Withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cine film

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

Claimed to be notable because of the other language versions, but the French and Spanish wikipedias do not refer to it as "cine film". Extensive seraching on Google and GBooks found only false positives. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep and indef topic ban from raising all further XfDs, PRODs and CSDs. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: At what point did you find sources? I explained that I did do sourcing this time and was unable to find anything related to this topic specifically. I am fluent in Spanish and the Spanish article does not seem to be on the same topic at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a vast history, maybe a century, to "cine film" and huge amounts of sourcing. If you're looking for technical discussion of the transition from film stock (particularly small gauge) to digital, then you could look at several published papers on that, particularly for metadata handling, by one Dingley, A. (c. 2002), whoever he is.

I would agree that the Spanish article is a mis-link. But that's OK, because we don't base article topic notability on other language wikipedias anyway.

If you want to question the scope of this article (Is this article focussed on or restricted to amateur work? Is 35mm and larger in or out? Are there really just four formats? How far do we go about synchronised sound recording too?) then those are good questions and the place for them is at the article talk: page, not by raising an AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure if I follow the argument that other languages don't refer to this topic as "cine film". I don't read French, but the French-language version seems to be a well-developed article that could be translated. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Macmillian lists it as a British English term [1]; as does Collins, which provides more detail [2]. Open University [3], the National Library of Scotland [4] and the BBC [5] use the term freely. The Telegraph ran an advice column on converting cine film to digital format [6]. An ordinary web search reveals an interminable series of audiovisual service companies offering cine-to-DVD transfer for preserving old home movies. The term is used in academic literature, not just in film studies [7] but also, e.g., in a paper about digital archiving of medical records [8]. The topic does not fall entirely within home movies or even amateur film, thanks to its role in scientific data-collecting, so it should be kept as its own page. XOR'easter (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep de:Schmalfilm refers to all formats smaller than 35mm primarily used for home video captures. That fits this article. If the name of the article is incorrect, moving will solve this. The de-wiki name can be translated as "small gauge film format" (cf. [9]), which might be a better title if one disagrees to use a UK-centric title. However, that the topic of such film formats is notable should not be in dispute. I can't believe the "false positives" claim though, GNews finds plenty of sources that explicitly use this term: "A rare unseen colour cine film of Paul McCartney from The Beatles backstage after playing in Montreal on September 8 1964", "Most 8mm cine film is shot at 18fps", "It was taken from a frame of an 8mm cine film, shot in 1963 or 1964", "The filmmaker was eager to trace the mystery couple who featured in the old cine film of a wedding held during the late 1960s at St Peter's Church in Kirkcaldy." Regards So Why 18:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: Those sources use the term, but do they explain it in detail? That's my main concern. I found either uses of the term or false positives, but nothing categorically explaining the term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page needs work as I'm not convinced that it gets it right. Per Moving Images: From Edison to the Webcam, cine film meant film for the cinematograph, as opposed to photographic film for other types of camera. Getting this straightened out is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy and deletion plays no part in this as AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Thank you, that's the kind of thing I'm looking for. I have withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.