Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grand Cinema

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. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Cinema[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence of notability. I'd do a redirect to the shopping centre but the problem is that the title itself isn't unique to this cinema. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The largest cinema in Hong Kong, one of the major movie-making cities of the world, seems notable to me. An independent source is already in the article and there seem to be sufficient additional sources to support the article.[1][2][3][4][5][6]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it currently stands, but if someone actually creates an article which demonstrates notability based on the sources found by Arxiloxos, then Move to The Grand Cinema, Hong Kong to avoid confusion. dramatic (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After my initial comment, the source that was provided in the article was deleted, along with some of the content that went to its notability. I've restored that, added more, and added five sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter think it's notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 10 February 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.