Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vision Of Paolo Soleri: Prophet In The Desert


 * 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Vision Of Paolo Soleri: Prophet In The Desert

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film lacking trivial coverage. Fails WP:NOTFILM. red dog six (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The film the vision of paolo soleri: prophet in the desert is considered significant in architectural circles. I don't see how write ups on different architectural websites, news papers in the United States and Europe, Dwell, The Los Angeles Times, etc are considered trivial. Also the Hallands Nyheter is considered a rather larger News Paper in Sweden. The Italian Consulate General of Los Angeles also has write up on the film (not used in cites). I wasn't aware the wikipedia needed an entire run down of all press something had received in order to stop a page from deletion. The film is also of historical significance as it chronicles the life of world famous architect Paolo Soleri, and Soleri approved of the film. The film features never before seen archival documents, such a letters between Soleri and Frank Lloyd Wright, as well as correcting certain falsehoods about Soleri's early life that were previously unknown to anyone even Soleri's own family. LoveSammi
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  23:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Snowy keep even when the nominator tagged it the article had multiple WP:RS. The rationale "Non-notable film lacking trivial coverage" is blatantly incorrect: the bar is for non-trivial coverage but at the time he tagged it, such a rationale wasn't even met by that low benchmark. This one is a puzzle, to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: A lot of those sources are trivial in nature, only mentioning the documentary in brief. I do think that there will be enough to keep the article, but this needs a pretty hard cleaning because some of the links given didn't back up the claims in the article (not that I doubt the truthfulness) and most are trivial. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The coverage here is incredibly light and I wish that there was a review out there that would help give this a little more oomph. (I have a feeling that someone involved with the film might view this, so I'd like to point them towards review sites such as Film Threat, which would likely gush over a film like this if they got the chance to see a copy.) I'm not sure that the film festivals it has shown at are so incredibly big that they would really count towards notability, but we do have four sources that discuss the film- one of which is in another language. It's just enough to where I can muster a weak keep for this. If it's not kept then I'd recommend that it be incubated or userfied. I'd be willing to userfy it myself if it comes to that. If we had just one review, I'd feel a lot more solid about this keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:58, 13 December 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.