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. Consensus has shifted towards keeping. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The R.M.[edit]

The R.M. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Per WP:BEFORE searches, including customized searches, this film has not received any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, thus failing WP:NFP and WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only cites IMDb (Unreliable per WP:IMDB). And through searching, I cant seem to find any SIGCOV in any RS, mostly blogs and IMDb. Fails WP:FILMNOT.--Kieran207 talk 18:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now cites more than just IMDB. Eopsid (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Current sources doesn't fit in WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added extra sources, so sources at the time of the above comment have now changed Eopsid (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I see an entry from Box Office Mojo for it (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0341540/?ref_=bo_se_r_1). Would the addition of this make it pass muster? Just wondering what kind of citations it needs to be considered notable. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I know the BYU Daily Universe reviewed this film, because I remember reading the review. I am not sure I will be able to find that review, since we are talking about a film that came out over 18 years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is currently unsourced. But after going on to the Rotten Tomatoes page for the film, I've found a couple of reviews which could be used for sources and make the article notable. The reviews are: https://www.ericdsnider.com/movies/the-rm/ and https://www.deseret.com/2004/1/20/20090087/film-review-r-m-the Basically I think the article in its current state isnt good enough for Wikipedia but with the addition of a few citations and extra information gleaned from it, it can be made a worthy article. Eopsid (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article adding more sources Eopsid (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Despite playing in no more than 30 theaters at once, this film grossed $1.1 million in the U.S. -- more than some more widely recognized films such as Owning Mahowny, All the Real Girls, Gerry, and Spun (all released in 2003). It also received reviews in mainstream media, even outside "Mormon country" (including Variety and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer). The book Religious Humor in Evangelical Christian and Mormon Culture devotes half a page to explaining a single joke from the film. I would think this film qualifies as notable per WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn – Per some of the sources presented herein, specifically [1], [2] and [3]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This film clearly passes notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2021 (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.