Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rome Sweet Rome

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. Nominator withdrew. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rome Sweet Rome[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. Although if things work out this eventually will have an article, so maybe incubation isn't a terrible idea, although I have no idea how to propose that. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Not notable idea. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep I am the creator, so I suppose my vote counts less, but I have two reaons. 1) it is not just a film, it is also a short story. Since it is also a short story, then I think the NFF rules are not the only criteria, and it should fall under general notability. The short story has received a ton of coverage, in a wide variety of sources (see the references I have included already, plus a TON I did not include because they were largely redundant in terms of content). Gaijin42 (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. (struck. see my keep below) I propose a compromise and have alerted the nominator and above editors of my option on their talk pages. The way I see it, as a article about a planned film, this one is far too premature. Considering the vagaries surrounding film production and the fact that as this one was only recently optioned by Warner Bros, we'd have a looooong time to wait for principle filming to begin, if ever. But the article led me to the online story itself and to the numerous articles which deal directly and in detail about the short story and to those offering insightful commentary and critique of the story itself and its concept. As a film article, it fails WP:NFF and does not merit being an exception... but in looking for alternatives, I considered that policy allows that discussion of a future event might be worth including somewhere, even if not in its own article. To that end, and as the short story has the coverage to meet the general notability guide and criteria for writing about fiction, I took it upon myself to write a different article... one that instead deals directly with the short story that is A) receiving coverage, and B) receiving critical anaysis and commentary im reliable secondary sources. I then included a short section dealing with the story's film prospects that could then be used as a redirect target. Please visit User:MichaelQSchmidt/Rome, Sweet Rome (short story) and see how a change of focus addresses the NFF issue and yet still presents the project with a neutral, well-sourced, and encyclopdic topic. The film may never be made, but the short story already exists, is not a crystal topic, and is being covered in sources. I think moving my article to mainspace and using that one section as a redirect target, might save a lot of drama. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment My article is not specifically about the film, but also about the short story, so all the arguments about why your new proposed article would be acceptable apply to the original as well. I do think that you have some good additional content that can be added into the existing article though. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I have now merged over most of the content reccomended by MichaelQSchmidt, which places more emphasis on the short story, therefore I think the NFF criteria no longer applies. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Working with a consideration toward my option first offered above, and in collaboration with opriginal author User:Gaijin42, the article formerly seen as failing NFF, has now changed its focus to NOT be about a film, but instead and taking advantage of the many sources offering critical commentary and review about military historian James Erwin's fiction story by, in instead concentrates on the well covered story. While information about a possible film adaptation is included, it is done so per policy and is in a subsection set in context to the topic. If and or when a film is made from the story, we can give consideration to creating an article specifically about the film. I wish to NOTE for a closer that the article now is not the same artcle as first commented on by the nominator Yaksar and editor Mohamed Aden Ighe, and they have both been invited back to this discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note from nominator Given MichaelQSchmidt's changes (and thanks for alerting me of them, I found them very impressive) this article should no longer be deleted. That being said, it does somewhat trouble me that all of the sources except one seem to concern the proposed film, not just the story. I think it would probably make sense, once the film does meet NFF, to have the article at this title for both, rather than one for the story and one for the film if most of the story's sourcing is film related. But with all that being said, I withdraw my nomination and feel this is a keep.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much. It was my finding the extremely incisive storyline analysis by the Roman history expert as offered by Popular Mechanics, that did it for me. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The short story meets requirements by coverage in reliable sources. Some of the sources though need publisher information.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done ~~Agreed and I'll get to it shortly.~~ I did include proper publisher info in my rewrite. The current verison of the original is a result of a merge of portions of mine to that of his by the author. Was easy enough to address. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For closing admin, see Note from nominator above: "this article should no longer be deleted". So I guess this discussion could be safely closed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2011 (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.