Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Roma

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. (non-admin closure) @Kate (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Roma[edit]

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

Nova-Roma is a non-notable online club and micronation that purports to be an effort to reconstruct the Roman Republic, but has made no progress whatsoever toward that goal. In eleven years, their only accomplishments are a web site, an on-again/off-again newsletter, a few meetings of a handful of members, and a controversial donation of a few thousand dollars to an archaological project. ~~Requesting deletion as non-notable.~~ (full disclosure: I, AFD nominator, am a former officer and member of this group.) . MattHucke ^(t) 19:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Qworty (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least replace with the dab page. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether the article meets the notability guidelines should be a separate issue from an evaluation of the merit of the organization. Nova Roma is cited in published works as part of the modern revival of pagan religions (see the citations on page). The debate should be on whether the citations satisfy the "significant coverage" guidelines. [Edit: Notability was resolved in favor of keeping in March 2009, (see the Talk page).] Whogue (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I stand by my previous statements on the talk page: I think this organization is notable, but the sources provided aren't adequate to support this. Given that the sourcing has improved minimally, if at all, over time, I'm becoming more and more skeptical as to whether the necessary sources exist. ~~A year ago I might have argued to keep the article, but today, I'm neutral.~~ cmadler (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC) See my support for deletion below. cmadler (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a lot of citations on the talk page, but I have not checked to see if they are incorporated into the article. I would also support removing unsourced material, as I mentioned on the talk page. My feeling is that the article has made progress, but slowly, over time, but has also accreted a lot of original research. Getting rid of the unsourced stuff, and making sure that the sources cited on Talk are properly used would to my mind take care of much of the notability and POV concerns. Whogue (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not based on the success of an organisation in fullfilling its goals. From (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made my own connection to Nova Roma clear in the initial AfD request: I'm an ex-member, unhappy at the group's decline. Those of you who are still involved, please have the courtesy to do the same. User:Whogue is a current director of the group, and User:From is its web host; both are advocating to "Keep". MattHucke ^(t) 15:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The more I've thought about this, the less sympathetic I've become toward keeping this article. The core notability question can be simple. Has Nova Roma received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Based on the references currently provided in the article, I'd argue that the coverage is largely either trivial or is not independent, and the article should be deleted. Given the (claimed) scope of the organization's operations, I'd expect that more significant coverage exists, which hasn't been added to this article; however, this subject's notability has been repeatedly questioned over the last 3 1/2 years, and the sources have only improved marginally, if at all. Perhaps someone will find some better article, in which case I'd welcome an article on Nova Roma, but based on what we have now, and what we've had for 3 1/2 years, I don't think it's sufficient. (Since it seems necessary in this discussion, I'll add here that I have no current or past connections to this organization.) cmadler (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources in the article at this time. If more sources can be found then keep it. An organization can be dying or dead and still be notable. Racepacket (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be mentioned in a couple of books and news stories. The article is way too promotional, and long, but no reason to delete. Borock (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nova Roma is certainly a notable group with members from all over the world (if not for other reasons just for it has one of the biggest and most popular Roman themed website). The article itself is poorly written, but it is way much more referenced than last year. Progress has been made, it's true that more is needed, but there is no reason for deletion. (Member of NR.) --Gonda Attila (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of Nova Roma's members actively engage in offline Nova Roma and Roman activities. The article should be updated and reworded - brought current but not deleted.--JRAquila (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Several of the above "keep" !votes do not address the key issue of whether there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." cmadler (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep here is a notable outside source mentioning Vox Romana podcast, a project run by NR citizens.

[1]User:Shinsen2009 —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It appears that they will list any "Podcasts of readings of Latin and (ancient) Greek texts", as they invite people to submit their own, saying, "If you would like to have your Classics Podcast listed here, please email bmulliga[at]haverford[dot]edu." Also, this "reference" is the height of triviality: a podcast produced by some members of the group listed, with only a brief description (not even a full sentence!), in a directory of similar podcasts. No mention of Nova Roma. No mention of why this particular podcast might be important (if it is) relative to others. Etc. Even IF this podcast were somehow significant, there is no source given for the claim that Nova Roma is responsible for it; the website for the podcast makes no mention of this organization. cmadler (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the original nominator, I feel that the Nova Roma members have been sufficiently alerted to problems in their organizational structure and their real-world accomplishments, and therefore seek to withdraw this AfD. MattHucke ^(t) 16:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added approximately 15 new references to the article and to me it seems now much more reliable. When this debate started, the article had 13 references, now it has 30. (In the beginning of 2009 it had only 5 references, so it is an improvement!) As the original nominator suggested, I suggest removing the deletion tag from the article. Keep the article. --Gonda Attila (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2009 (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.