Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remedy (film)

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. All references are IMDb (not a reliable source) or primary. No other reliable, secondary sources which discuss the film in a non-trivial way can be found. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^prattle 19:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:ATD, all IMDB uses as references have been removed, and the article cleaned up in preparation for proper sources, such as The New York Times. However, and due to the film's rather common name of "remedy", searches for additional sources will be hampered. It's gonna take some work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, this doesn't need any work, Schmidt. It's not notable. It is possible for a subject to be utterly non-notable. In this case, there is no notability. If this one actually gets kept, then I might as well create articles about the films I've appeared in that don't have articles yet, because they have actual notable press coverage in comparison with some of the articles Schmidt works so hard to keep. Something must be done about this ultra-inclusionist behaviour. Laval (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did I state a keep? Why do you attack me personally, rather than discuss the article? Your continued rancour at my suggestion that certain articles might benefit the project by their being improved is wearing quite thin... specially when I am just as willing to opine a delete when actually merited. If you have an opinion per guideline, fine. But please stop making arguments toward me. THAT is not per policy nor guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the NYTimes review and the fact there are notable actors in it. But cool out you two above. The fact he's commenting on your trends Schmidt is not a reason to backfire. The comment includes you but I don't think it's focused on you. Let's discuss the individual case. Shadowjams (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That actors are fairly notable, and I think most film articles should be included. Its madness that some future historian, can't come along and create a full timeline of what specific actors acted in which films, or indeed your average reader. scope_creep (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2010 (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.