Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legiones Redde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. W.marsh 00:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legiones Redde

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Legiones Redde (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

A non-notable fan film. The fanfilms link shows only 283 hits since July. No sign of importance or popularity. IrishGuy talk 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, the film has hit clost to 3000 hits according to vidiac and is being shown in High Schools thoughout EL Paso Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

A film made by high schoolers (correction: college students, my apologies) being shown in high school isn't notable. This meets none of the criteria of WP:WEB or film notability. IrishGuy talk 22:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

College students involved in a film organization is notable. This film was made from UT El Paso, not high schoolers. Their previous films where made during high school, but their new film was made in UT El Paso, and is being shown in local high schools, online, and other rome fan forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

Please illustrate how this meets WP:WEB or film notability. College students making a film doesn't automatically make the film notable. People make low-to-no budget films all the time. They don't all get encyclopedia entries. IrishGuy talk 22:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film. 1 Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the film name and where it is being shown. (From what I heard in a special features part of the film, it contained an article in the UT El Paso student newspaper known as "The Prospector") —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

If this is the case, please provide these sources. Additionally, a college student newspaper would not qualify as non-trivial. IrishGuy talk 22:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable student film made for a couple hundred bucks. Fails WP:NOTFILM and WP:WEB. I could barely find any relevant Google hits ["Legiones Redde"+"Robert Towne" (name of director/co-writer/co-star) gets three unique G-hits: the WP page, the fanfilms.net page, and an EarthLink page). -- Kicking222 22:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where the sources are, I'm not part of the organization. I could try sending an email to them but I don't know if they'll ever respond —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

And another thing, just because a film was made with little or no budget doesn't make it a bad film. Its about talent not money. The Blair With project was made with a regular camcorder and it's the most succesful Garage Movie Studio release. Its called Gurrila filmmaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

No one has said that low budget films are bad films, nor has anyone said this particular film was a bad film. How good or bad the film may be is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. IrishGuy talk 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well then, I will discuss this on the Towne Films forums to determine the ways how it does meet the criteria. You may delete at will while in the meantime i'll discuss this with other fansMaraJade85 23:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to amass others to disrupt Wikipedia as you did on the forums. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying that on the forums we'll work on getting the finding the way to see the article meet the criteria. I'm not telling them to disrupt wikipedia, I'm just saying that like we'll figure something out later. Oh well, I rest my case.MaraJade85 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - This article doesn't meet any notability standards, particularly the ones previously cited. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I don't know if it was any of you, but I won't pay any attention to any rascists here. Since someone wrote a comment on the forum. Now perhaps the other person I would agree with to a certain point, but this isn't just about degrading or upgrading, this is about whether someone can write an article about a piece of art that one found wonderful. Now obviously if that piece of art were made by my boyfriend, I would have no business making an article about it. However, if a 3rd party wrote it, that's the difference. I think some of you are concerned that because I am a fan of the movie, I have conflict of interest, but then if not a fan, who can write an article? Most articles here were written by fans of their subject matter. The film was approved to be on fanfilms.net, and has been shown for educational purposes in high schools, therefore it is notable imao. MaraJade85 02:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There are definite criteria for inclusion. This subject meets none of them. As an active member of the forums, your authoring this article is a conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 02:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

When I read what could not go on wikipedia, it stated clearly no advertising and no self-promotions. I have in no way promoted myself, and I don't wish to. I simply wrote an article about a film I liked. How then is that conflict of interest? I'm sure any of you would write articles about stuff you like, and how can this be considered advertising? It could if I told people to watch the film no matter what, but rather I took an analytic approach which discussed the films drawbacks and some of its historical innaccuracies. If that is considered advertising, then lets just delete the articles on other films since they discuss those films too, and while we're at it let's delete the article on the Arizona Cardinals since that article is advertising them. If all I did was praise the film and tell people beg people to watch it, then I could understand the advertising accusation. However, I took a non-partisan critical approach when I wrote the article. It is quite notable as I repeat, it has been showcased in high schools, online, it has a fanfilms.net listing (and that site does not accept all movies), it has been discussed in forums about Rome Total War and HBO's Rome, and furthermore, I found it. I don't even know these people personally, yet I found this film online and that's saying something because it would be different if I was a family member of someone in the production. However since I found it online, and so have others. In fact I've been excited about this film since like it was first announced, and this isn't just any ordinary home video, it took lots of months and to make and the filmmakers almost went broke putting their money in it, and I waited all those months and I saw the "making of" video which showed everything the filmmakers went through. Its an online movie, I love it, and I wrote this article about it. So where do we set the line between what people can write about and what they can't, between what one subjectively thinks is notable compared to what another person thinks is notable? Certainly this film has attracted attention beyond its local sphere, or else I would not have seen it, and it has been viewed in other places and discussed in other websites. Perhaps, since I'm only a fan of the movie, we need somebody else who hates the film to write the article...MaraJade85 04:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT - For what it's worth, I did go broke moving house from Garden Grove, California to Bellevue, Washington on the train, arriving with little more than an unemployment check and $80 from my parents - but you don't see me putting my adventures up here on Wikipedia. Sorry, but "almost went broke" is not a sign of notability. As for where we draw the line on acceptability, the lines are very well drawn - read up the documentation here on Wikipedia. Start at Help:Contents and click on Getting Started for some good primers, and good luck. --Dennisthe2 00:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't possibly be any clearer: being shown online and in a few high schools does not make it notable. It fails every level of criteria for inclusion. You have actively partaken in publicizing this film. Being a member of the forums and being the one responsible for submitting it to fanfilms.net makes your authorship of this article an extreme conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 05:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable film. --Dennisthe2 08:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wrong, the film has hit clost to 3000 hits My Ebay store has more hits (heck, more sales) than that, I don't write Wikipedia articles about it. filmmakers almost went broke putting their money in it A LOT of people put piles of money into entertainment projects that never become notable. Occupational hazard. Delete. Tubezone 09:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I simply wrote an article about a film I liked I liked the movie also, but I wouldn’t write an article about it here. You asked where the line is drawn, well this is basically it: if the film is getting more publicity from 3rd party outside sources than from wikipedia, then it could be possible to have an article, but if wikipedia is giving the film more publicity than the outside sources are, then it doesn’t belong here. There are hardly any outside sources of publicity for this film. I found a few forums related to Rome Total War and HBO’s Rome that talked about the film, but that was it. I couldn’t even find the trailer on Youtube! If you want this film to have more publicity, I suggest that these “Towne Films” get off these obscure vidiac networks (who ever goes there) and move to youtube. Though money spent should not be considered, neither should be the film's content nor potential of the filmmakers. Even if these people are future George Lucases and Steven Spielbergs, their earliest films when they went out with camcorders would not have qualified for wikipedia at the time they were made. Delete129.108.96.131 15:22, 13 November 2006 (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.