Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life does not lose its value


 * 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   Userfy. To User:Wilmamassucco/Life does not lose its value  Sandstein   07:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Life does not lose its value

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Author declined PROD. Original PROD text was: Film appears to be non-notable - no references in article, and none could be found using standard searches. The subject of this article does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 14:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, It's likely I didn't understand the Wikipedia policy about notability. I thought the matter, i.e. "rehabilitation of former child soldiers" has a significant notability for itself, but Wikipedia policy refers to the notability of the film, isn't it correct? If so, as I just published very recently this Documentary, it's likely it has not sufficient notability as requested. In such a case, I'm very sorry for this misunderstanding. I agree with the deletion. In the future, if the Film will conquer a bigger notability, I'll try to insert it on Wikipedia again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilmamassucco (talk • contribs) 15:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Userfy. There's nothing out there to show that this film has notability. There's no reviews and no-indepth articles. I would also like to recommend that the original editor not re-upload the article herself and instead go through WikiProject Film for help. There's a plethora of people who love creating film articles and they can not only help to create an encyclopedic article, but also ensure that there's no conflict of interest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional: I would also recommend that you not add mentions of it to other articles as well, as this can be seen as being promotional. The thing about you uploading things for your own projects or anything you're involved in is that everything you do is usually seen with suspicion and to be honest, it's easy to understand why. If you're involved with the person, project, or group that you're writing about, that means that you have a strong opinion one way or another. If you like your film then you're going to be naturally inclined to write about it in a positive manner, whether you realize it or not. The same would apply if you were writing about something you strongly disliked and was involved in. It's very easy to do this without ever realizing it, which is why it's usually encouraged for people with a conflict of interest to go through other editors. This way the non-involved editor can look at the information and decide what fits Wikipedia's guidelines for notability (which are pretty strict) and what doesn't. I personally recommend the editor Schmidt- he's one of the top editors here on Wikipedia, at least in my estimation.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It sounds like a worthy project, but I cannot find WP:RS in either English or Italian. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Italian title: )


 * Userfy for a while. As it appears this documentary is verifiable as being "fairly" recent and is beginning to be written of, we might allow it to be worked on out of mainspace. When we do have reliable sources offering comentary and analysis, a return to mainspace might be considered. To User:Wilmamassucco, please spend some time sudying WP:Notability (films) and WP:RS to understand that worthy as the topic of children soldiers in Sierra Leon might be, for a film article, it is the film that needs to meet inclusion requirements through coverage in multiple reliable sources. I urge you to visit WP:PRIMER and WP:NAY. And to User:Tokyogirl79, I might hope you agree the author's working in a userspace is a pretty good way to get advice and input to improve this film article. If it proves unimprovable, it will not be back. If is is improvable, it will be... and will thus benefit the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to userfy. You're right Schmidt- there's nothing wrong with her userfying it until more sources can become available.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy per MichaelQSchmidt. Can't find WP:RS, but I expect some will appear in time. Scopecreep (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * wilmamassucco | A review about Life does not lose its value has just been published on | Popoli e Missione, April 2012, Magazine of CEI, Comitato Episcopale Italiano but it is a paper magazine, so that the web version of April 2012 will be available on the web not before june 2012. So, what shall I do to provide another major contribution with a close connection with the subject? The same is for | Nigrizia, monthly magazine: a deep review of the Documentary will be published in the paper version of the magazine, Number of May 2012, but this number will not available on the web before july 2012
 * I prefer links, as they are easier for other editors to verify. But paper citations are just fine; not as common as they used to be on WP, but quite acceptable. Take your time; it seems the consensus is Userfy, which as you may have gathered, means to move the article to a sub-article of your User page, where you have time to work on it. Anarchangel (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and http://books.google.com/ Google Books and http://scholar.google.com/ Google Scholar may help you in your search, or to create links for paper citations. Anarchangel (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.