Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose (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 no consensus. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rose (Film)

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable film. Fails WP:NFILM. - Mr X 19:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak delete per nomination, and based on this comment made by the article's author at his user talk page in which he admits to writing the article to "generate talk" about the film. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the creator's express intentions and characterization of the film's circumstances. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC) No longer concerned given the more recent activity and findings. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per nomination. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of WP:SOAP from subsequent reply. I don't see this ending well if potential issues were to be unaddressed. --Marianian^(talk) 01:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per non-COI edits made to improve the article past what it looked like when first nominated. Yes, is was WP:UGLY when nominated, but that is no longerthe case. Time to step back a second. COI is always a concern, but not strictly forbidden, as even User:Jimmy Wales has occasionally edited the Jimmy Wales article about himself. Guideline shares the reasons for why editors need be held separate from those topics upon which they contribute. Yes, User:Stuart Bannerman made eight edits to that page. But now that he has been made aware of concerns, he has ceased. Others with no COI have subsequently made far more edits there than did Stuart. So I suggest we step back from the angst surrounding this topic's origination, and look at the improvements made since writing, looking at the non-Bannerman edits which occurred after nomination, try to ignore and comments about the editor himself, and decide if the film being created, released and having non-trivial coverage meets the inclusion criteria set by WP:NF. As long as Bannerman no longer edits it, the decision should be just that simple. User:Tokyogirl79 deserves our thanks for turning a sow's ear into something that serves the project. Kudos girl... kudos. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if it'd be enough to keep or not. I second the keep opinion- I think that there's just enough here to squeak by. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am convinced enough that this is just notable enough to be kept, fulfilling GNG and marginally NFILM. A simple cursory search ("Rose movie") for sources would not have been enough, given the film's simple name and the rehaul of the article is commendable. More can be done, however, such as a citation to complement the release date mentioned in the infobox. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've changed my !vote to weak delete. Although I applaud MichaelQSchmidt's efforts in improving this article (where do you find your sources??) I still think the coverage is a bit weak. It all appears to be local to the Northampton area where the film was shot, and it is scattered between coverage of the original 2008 short film and the new 2012 feature. The short, having been granted a Cannes screening, might just be notable if there is evidence of anyone noticing it at that screening. The feature still seems a bit light on coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ WikiDan61: Just takes digging and persistence, and expanding searches to include possibilities and User:Tokyogirl79 deserves even more credit. There was a BBC radio interview wherein the short was spoken of in detail and which discussed plans for the eventual feature to be based on the short, but I cannot find it archived. Perhaps a new article can be written on the short with the information on the resulting award-winning and distributed feature film included in addition section. Of course, having won awards and distribution, the feature might be considered the more notable of the two. Certainly the short did not have the coverage of the feature. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It has gotten one award as it stateson WP:NFILM Thats enough to reach Notability. Dudel250 Chat PROD Log CSD Logs 02:45, 4 June 2014 (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.