Talk:Philadelphia Experiment II

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article...

...was originally a section in The Philadelphia Experiment, for quite awhile, and then someone split it out into its own article. The deletionist presumably wants it added back in to the original article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this film is certainly not notable on its own; what else could we do? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is The Philadelphia Experiment notable? And if so, how is its sequel not notable? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is a non-sequitur. Notability is not contagious; the sequel is not notable simply because the original was. (See law of diminishing returns.) --Orange Mike | Talk 03:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the original notable? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AHA! Stumped you with that one, eh? >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt; but after a bit of pondering, I've prodded the first film as NN too. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might do that. Next poser: What makes a theatrical film notable vs. not notable? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, all 5? I wonder what they teach about Plan 9 from Outer Space. Maybe as an example of "How NOT to make a film"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's any one of the five. Plan 9 is sui generis; but it's got a much higher public profile than many much better films. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first film, at least, is in Leonard Maltin's book. But finding reviews from 30 years ago is a little hard to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...? This film isn't 30 years old. Nor is the first film although it doesn't really matter here since this isn't the right talk page for that 08:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)