Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romeo is Bleeding (documentary)

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 Userfy. Moved to user namespace at User:MKlein1228/Romeo is Bleeding (2015 film) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo is Bleeding (documentary)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, citations and sources purely cover funding, not about actual film project BOVINEBOY2008 19:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. It's WP:TOOSOON for an entry, but the prizes do give off the hope that coverage may come when the documentary releases- although of course we can't guarantee that it'll gain the coverage per WP:CRYSTAL, hence the userfy vote. Since we have at least half a year to a year before this happens, it's just a little premature to have this in the mainspace. AfC might not be a bad idea for this, but I'm willing to userfy this myself or at least watch over the userspace entry for the movie if it gets transferred back to the original editor's userspace. I don't really want this to get deleted if it sits in AfC long enough for it to get nominated as an abandoned entry, given that we've got a fairly long time to wait for coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked to see if there was enough to justify an article for the director, but I think it's a little early for him as well. He's known for Twenty Feet From Stardom and was part of a group that won an ACE Award for the movie. One of his local papers said he won an Oscar, but he wasn't part of the group as far as the official names on the ballot go. Most of the coverage for him is local and in passing, so I think it's slightly premature for him to have an entry- I do remain optimistic that he could merit one in the future, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: I am leaning toward a weak keep per as the project has received coverage making it a consideration under WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Points toward meeting that paragraph are A ) it receiving coverage, B ) it being only one of three to receive a San Francisco Film Society's 2014 Documentary Film Fund Award,[1] C ) filming being complete, and D ) it now in post-production . See WP:FFCLARIFY. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This doesn't appear to be particularly notable in the present, but could easily become notable in the future. I'd prefer to keep this article in userspace so it won't have to be rewritten in the probable event it becomes notable. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:48, 19 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.