Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Roma (short 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   delete. Contact me if you want this userfied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Nova Roma (short film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD.Lacks significant coverage,and fails WP:NF.  L smll  06:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the film's IMDb listing insufficient to establish notability?
 * - Aurelian Carpathia (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see it meet any criteria of WP:NF. There is no IMDB listing in WP:NF. I think just listing in IMDB is not sufficient.After a web search,I didn't find any significant coverage.And in IMDB,there is only a very brief introduction about this film. L smll  07:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * IMDb is not something that can show notability. It's actually something that's sort of discouraged in general as even a WP:TRIVIAL source since anyone can sign on an edit it. You can read more about this here. The type of thing that would give notability would be something along the lines of a review in a newspaper or coverage in a magazine considered to be a WP:RS. Sources such as this one by the student paper for the university the director attends would be seen as a primary source since she's a student there. On a side note to anyone coming in, this is a student film. What this means to the article is that student films rarely gain coverage enough to merit inclusion. Sometimes they do, but that's usually years later when the director achieves notability in other formats. Even then, it's more the norm that films created during college get largely ignored or only briefly mentioned. So far I'm not seeing where this short gained that much notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I also have to ask, given the extremely limited coverage of the film... are you the film's director or someone that knows her or is associated with her? If so, you will probably want to look over WP:COI to see why it's usually highly discouraged for you to create an article for something that you might have a conflict of interest over. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is ultimately a non-notable student film. As I said above, 99.9% of all student films will lack the notability necessary to pass notability guidelines for films. This includes films by directors that are extremely notable. There just isn't enough out there to merit an article at this point in time, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:NOTFILM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddogsix (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 July 2013
 * Delete I went ahead and watched the complete movie and found it a surprising well made student film. A real pity the filmmakers did not do more to get this seen. After watching the film, I went so far as to address some article issues with format, style and sourcing, but feel its limited coverage fails WP:NF. Allow back if and only when more becomes available.. and IF it comes back, it should be under the proper title Nova Roma (film).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think it could/should be userfied by the original editor if they showed interest? I have no true problem with this being userfied by an interested party. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with it being userfied if requested. The film is an unsung treasure. I left him a note explaining through my example how the article could be improved, suggested a course of editorial study, and told him to ask for it if he wishes it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:18, 16 July 2013 (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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.