Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Roma (2nd nomination)


 * 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. With respect to the several SPAs and the possibility of meatpuppetry or socking...I find that Ms. Batfish response to JFHjr and Warden's argument sufficiently countweight the arguments by PhantomSteve and JFHJr. I'm also inclined to agree with Legis that there may be more sources in Italian. This AFD has been relisted several times already and I just don't think a consensus to delete will be achieved. v/r - TP 14:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nova Roma
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Despite a long list of references, this organisation does not appear to meet the notability criteria, as the coverage provided is not 'significant' or 'independent'. Analysis of the citations as they currently stand:


 * Comment: Previously I did not point this out, however, it is important to note that while we might or might not consider the references to Nova Roma 'significant', but they are certainly 'independent', even in the most rigorous sense. The only non-independent reference in the article is one of the two links to the Certamen Petronianum, and the one of the two links to the Nova Roma coinage, only to support the data at the American Numismatic Association and to illusrate better the coin itself, its form, shape and history. --Gonda Attila (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Palacios, Juan José: listed in a list of cybernations, single mention in a list, no further coverage
 * 2) Strmiska: about the Nova Roma adherents in the military, but not significant coverage of the organisation sufficient for an article
 * 3) Maine Department of the Secretary of State: confirms they exist and are non-profit
 * 4) Dixon, Suzanne: 2 sentences, basically as an example of creative anachronmism and as a micro-nation
 * 5) Trinkle, D. A./Merriman, S. A: Listed in a directory of websites
 * 6) Burgan, Michael: Listed as "further resources", a couple of sentences saying that they provide information on "Roman Way", guidelines for choosign a Roman name, and a calcaltor for converting to/from Roman numerals
 * 7) Auffarth, Chr./Bernard, J./Mohr, H.: Unable to evaluate as I could not get a copy
 * 8) Sestertius signum - own website, not independent
 * 9) American Numismatic Association: confirms micronation status and own coinage, not indepth coverage though
 * 10) Caporaso, Giovanni: confirms micronation/coinage, not indepth, just a couple of sentences
 * 11) Vobruba, Georg: confirms micronation status
 * 12) Margot Adler: A short paragraph about the organisation. It reads like it was submitted by the organisation itself
 * 13) McColman, Carl: Unable to evaluate as I could not get a copy
 * 14) Davy, Barbara Jane: mentions in chapter "notes" as references - not substantial coverage. It references a statement about Reconstructionists of Roman paganism - the chapter does not mention Nova Roma itself
 * 15) Strmiska, Michael: As #2
 * 16) Joyce Higginbotham: a quotation from someone who says "I am a priest in Nova Roma", but does not actually go into detail. The following sentences are not about Nova Roma, but about other things
 * 17) "The second Festival of Ancient Heritage in Svishtov": listed on list of organisations who too part in the festival - not indepth
 * 18) "GLADIATORS TO BATTLE ON ROMAN MARKET DAY": Confirms that they organised the event, but no further details about the organisation ("The one-day event is being organized by Nova Roma, a Maine-based group dedicated to studying the history and culture of ancient Rome. The group has members and chapters across the United States and Canada") - appears to be based on a press release
 * 19) "Great Caesar's ghost ... ; A celebration of ancient Roman culture takes place this weekend in Hollis.": again, confirms they organised it, but not indepth coverage of the organisation - appears to be based on a press release
 * 20) "Roman days, Roman nights ; Gladiators, armor and other displays are a few highlights of Wells' annual Roman Market Days": again, confirms they organised it, but not indepth coverage of the organisation - appears to be based on a press release
 * 21) "Budapesti Történeti Múzeum - Aquincumi Múzeum - FLORALIA": A "What's happening" listing (presuambly based on a press release). Not significant coverage
 * 22) "XX. Floralia - Roman spring festival": Has no mention of Nova Roma
 * 23) "Certamen Petronianum": own website, not independent
 * 24) "Il CERTAMEN PETRONIANUM, un nuovo concorso per i latinisti": confirms that they organised the competition, but no further details about the organisation

I should also add that in the article it says that observers draw the conclusion that it is a micronation, whereas the sources seem to state that Nove Roma claim that status themselves.

To my eyes, this appears as an advert for the organisation, with lots of references added in the hope that people will see the quantity and assume it's notable - whereas in fact the references provide minor coverage of the organisation (one doesn't even mention them at all), and none of them provide indepth information about the organisation.

An article under the name Nova Roma (Micronation) was deleted in July 2004, and the last AfD (link above) closed as 'keep', I think mainly because a lot of references were added.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources seem adequate to support a stub and there are reasonable alternatives to deletion such as merger with List of historical reenactment groups. Warden (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Acording to the notability guidelines of Wikipedia (N), for articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. The large number of references to Nova Roma proves it is a small but relatively notable organization in its own, very mixed, category. It has coverage in press and in books related to the topic. If we define it as a Roman neopagan religion, it is certainly one of the oldest and biggest groups of this type, and it's the one that is international (and the references support it). If we define Nova Roma as a cultural, educational and reenactor society, plenty of the press releases and online news websites and some of the books among the references attest it has displayed a truly international activity from Bulgaria to Hungary, from the USA to Italy. However, if we define Nova Roma as a micronation, it is one of the oldest and most successful ones, with own coinage, international membership, real life activities, and refernced by authors and press. The source ("XX. Floralia - Roman spring festival") which according to Phantom Steve  would not mention Nova Roma, does, in fact, mention it. The link referred by PhantomSteve was an older version of the website, since then changed. But there are other sources to confirm that the event has indeed taken place, and Nova Roma was part of it, in every year since 2007. I will add the updated link information to the notes section of the article. See program mentioned on the National Geographic website; these pages of the Aquincum Museum website also confirm Nova Roma is a long time participant in this important Roman themed event of the capital city of Hungary in 2011, in 2009, in 2010.  Another independent mention of Nova Roma by the Bulgarian National Geographic website (click on the six photo below where Bulgarian text reads: "Members of the Nova Roma - an international organization that brings together people interested in ancient Roman history and culture around the world - Arthur Minenko of Estonia (in red) and Vladimir Popov from Bulgaria (white) recreate the Roman rite of the ancient agricultural festival of Ulpia Pautalia, held in June 2010 in Kyustendil."). Nova Roma was recently recommended by by the website of CASLS: Center for Applied Second Language Studies.  There is a longer mention of and about Nova Roma in Danese's book, Weni, widi, wici : tra 'volumen" e byte, pp.133-134. Nova Roma has been mentioned or listed in several other reliable sources and books, for example, in "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America: Metaphysical, New Age, and neopagan movements" by Eugene V. Gallagher, W. Michael Ashcraft, which lists Nova Roma, and just this alone proves Nova Roma achieved significance in Roman polytheistic reconstructionism. --Gonda Attila (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — Gonda Attila (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Nova Roma is an international organization and promotes many cultural activities. The arguments used to consider this article for deletion comes from a person who has no idea what Nova Roma promotes. -Psique Delfos (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC) — Psique Delfos (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please remember to avoid personal attacks and tell us what Wikipedia policy or guidelines support keeping this article. Please try not to make assumptions about the nominator's motivations, that user said that the reason they thought the article should be deleted was because they thought the references given for the article may not be reliable sources, which are required for Wikipedia. They are not making a personal statement about their views on Nova Roma, nor should anyone in this discussion. We are trying to decide whether the article follows Wikipedia's rules. Check out the words linked in blue for more information. Thank you. MsBatfish (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Please Keep Nova Roma! I do'nt see any reason for deletion.  NR  is a lively and slowly but surely growing cultural community and organization having increasing membership in the USA, England western and eastern Europe, with some members scattered even further all over the world, but willing to travel for some of the most important meetings occasions, very diverse which add to the cultural activity developed on line.  I think the article satisfies enough notability requiremts   The article can be improved and expanded and but, again there is absolutely no reason to delete it. I have seen personally assisted in 2 occasions to re-enactors military parades, and religious cerimonies in Roumania and and I have been invited to conferences Marcus Prometheus, italian in Roumania.  -82.137.15.1 (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC) — 82.137.15.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep: I think the references taken as a whole do prove that the subject is notable enough for an article. Perhaps encourage the main editors to develop the article further, do some more work on making it accurate and neutral, remove un-sourced info and/or find some better sources? MsBatfish (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I still maintain my 'Keep': I have now added a few additional sources and references. I support the argument of MsBatfish, Nova Roma may not be well-known, but it is mentioned by the most important printed books dealing with the topic. And there are still references not added to the article, so there is way for improvement here. --Gonda Attila (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Gonda Attila (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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) 01:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * relisting comment. More input from established editors is needed here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per MsBatfish's reasoning. Lithorien (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – This subject fails WP:BASIC requirements, namely substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. Looking into the cites that exist, I agree with the nominator's careful if not overly detailed analysis of the sourcing concerns. This subject also fails WP:ORG notability guidelines as an organization because of the paucity of in-depth coverage in WP:RS. MsBatfish's comment above is essentially a form of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Several others above are essentially WP:ILIKEIT, and should also be discounted. JFHJr (㊟) 02:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that my comment was a form of WP:SOURCES, I think it is in line with WP:BASIC, which states "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". WP:SOURCES is talking about when someone just says "Keep: there are lots of sources", when that is either untrue or the sources are not reliable/independent, or they do not (either individually or as a whole) provided enough coverage. If you want to argue that all the mentions in the sources listed so far are too trivial, even when taken together, to meet WP:BASIC, then that is a different matter. I am not un-persuadable. And I do think that one or more sources with more significant coverage would greatly improve the article. Also, I do agree that someone liking Nova Roma is not a sufficient explanation for a "Keep" stance. MsBatfish (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete with caveat. Failure of WP:BASIC is pretty core, but is there likely to be more available in Italian? --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I reinforce my initial 'Keep' based on WP:BASIC which notes that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". This article, in my view, satisfies this criterion, using multiple independent sources to demonstrate notability in the absence of substantial, in-depth coverage. --Gonda Attila (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Gonda Attila (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Just noting that I have since then added some new references. --Gonda Attila (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, there have been made other new improvements by a number of editors and more references were given, demonstrating this article has future. --Gonda Attila (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2011 (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.