Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remembering Phil

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 redirect‎ to List of comedy films of the 2000s#2008. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remembering Phil

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Despite the glowing praise in this article, this film seems to have received no attention from reliable sources at all, with no reviews at all on Rotten Tomatoes, no hits on Google News or Google Books, and the only review given here comes from a WordPress site... Fram (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Fram (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — As the creator of dozens of articles on Wikipedia, I created this article in good faith to celebrate a film that I enjoy and which I believe should meet notability for a film. One of the strange things about it is that DVD copies list critical praise and acclaim that is hard to find from third-party sources that meet our WP reliability standards, largely as a result of websites shuttering since the film's 2008 release. I did not mean to delete WP:PROD immediately by my objection, instead hoping to spend the next few days working on improving the article and trying to find more sources, as I have great respect for the work Fram in particular has done for our Wikipedia community. If not kept, I would humbly suggest Move To Draftspace, where perhaps I could continue to work on it. PickleG13 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing on Rotten Tomatoes, or anywhere for reviews... This is the best I cold find [1]. Long way from notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What are those "awards" shown at the bottom of the poster? That might give a clue where to look. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a higher-resolution poster:
- Official selection, Downtown Film Festival, Los Angeles
- Official selection, Big Bear Lake Int'l Film Festival
- Official selection, Beverly Hills Hi-Def Film Fest
They just seem to be notices that the film was accepted, not awards. Also, none of these records can be found online. Don't add anything to notability. Dan • ✉ 16:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's disappointing. Thanks for confirming. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been seeking them out, but I can't find much of anything on those film festivals and what was in them in those years. It also appears that there is some kind of dispute going on with a distributor, leading to certain film websites being closed or pulled. It's disappointing to have difficulty finding reliable sources especially when I believe that there used to be, but thanks to others for checking as well! PickleG13 (talk)
I have been seeking out the film festivals on the poster using the Internet Archive, but results are challenging to find. Added some new links to the page to back this up, though it is definitely still a challenge to find reliable sources to verify critical acclaim that occured fifteen years ago. PickleG13 (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unless SIGCOV can be found before the AfD is closed. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no RS to be found, see also my above reply to Oaktree b in re: hunt for the "awards" on the poster (none exist). Dan • ✉ 16:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to add another thought in the argument for keeping the article, which I did not mention in my original Keep or Move to Draftspace argument. This is the high-profile nature of the cast, with the exception of the secondary lead as the only major role who doesn't have a Wikipedia page. We have standards of notability for books on the basis of their famed authors and films on the basis of their famed directors, and I do feel that this under-observed film deserves some for its highly notable cast. Still seeking better sources to back it up. PickleG13 (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the cast is mildly notable and informations are verifiable, may I suggest a redirect to List of comedy films of the 2000s#2008 with 1 or 2 refs in footnotes? As the page’s creator requests, if the page is not kept, a Draftification, I suppose, that, out of courtesy, it could be allowed. But I really would favour a redirect. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a bad idea. I would support this motion. PickleG13 (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the film to List of comedy films of the 2000s#2008, with footnotes to pair with it. These films haven't yet been made into tables for easy sorting, but this could still be a good place for a redirect. I continue to support keeping the page, but this is a good compromise that I am prepared for. PickleG13 (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Btw, you might want to remove the bold (or even remove the first keep to replace it with Comment or Clarification, and ’unbold’ the other two bold words) in your comment above, as this has been considered a double vote, when it was, I believe, a good faith comment on your original keep-vote. Best -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out! Yes, that was not my intention. PickleG13 (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that the suggestion of Redirecting this page title can be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this page, I support this motion as an alternative to deletion. It seems like a solid use of a redirect, though I wish that this particular year had tables in place to display more information about it. PickleG13 (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2023 (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.