Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Billion


 * 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 to delete, article kept. Jamie  S93  22:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Billion

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable film. Not every film made in the United States is notable. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I vote to Keep it. It is a film, although not popular it still a film and deserves an article. Just google it and a bunch of stuff comes up about it--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense but you obviously aren't looking hard enough. Just type it in google there is a lot of information on the film at IMDB, rotten tomatoes, amazon, moviefone, etc.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked hard enough. This is the only review on Rotten Tomatoes (the rest were summaries). IMDB, Amazon, and Moviefone are trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Wow, I thought I was the only person who ever watched this, on TV back in 1979. It was a really silly plot, something about this guy who had one week to appear somewhere before a deadline in order to get a billion dollars that was coming to him.  So instead of going straight to New York or wherever it was, he decided to drive across the country to get there.  (Spoiler alert!)   He got there.  And when he did, he went to a microphone and said, "I AM MR. BILLION!!!"  and the crowd cheered.  Still, if all the article has to say is "Mr. Billion is a 1977 film directed by Jonathan Kaplan." then maybe I really was the only person who ever watched this.  I'd be willing to change my mind if someone improves on it.  Try Google news, it might turn up in a movie or TV review.  Mandsford (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but the page needs more info. Cynof  G  avuf 09:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Google News turns up more reviews, but most are behind paywalls. A few that aren't:, , .  I'm fairly sure there was a New York Times review, but it's hard to get enough of a chunk of the article ( - one search showed me a snipped of text from the 3/13 article where Canby mentions a previous review of Mr. Billion (presumably the 03/04 article); I can't for the life of me recreate the combination of search parameters showed that snippet of text). --Chris Johnson (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Google - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - The nomination does not identify why this article is being nominated for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * apology - I don't know what happened to make my rationale drop out; I have provided it now. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Further explanation of my nomination - There is a strong bias, it appears, towards the idea that every film ever made in the United States is inherently notable; I oppose that attitude. although not popular it still a film and deserves an article" conveys that theory very well; but it doesn't meet our standards as set out in WP:MOVIE. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MOVIE. This is a non-notable film directed by Jonathan Kaplan, whose own unreferenced article is about 50% comprised of links to notable actors he has worked with. His article doesn't even mention this film; apparently if it did, it would merely be another blue link in that article–not an improvement. (I have questions about his own notability given the article that is currently written...but that's a different matter.) Google hits do not demonstrate notability of this film, and GNews hits merely represent screenings and plot summaries, not critical commentary. No awards or honors appear to have been bestowed upon this movie. Frank  |  talk  14:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * reply - That was my first response to Kaplan's article, too; but if you look at his IMDb listing, he's done enough in the industry to sustain a claim of notability; it's just that none of the article is sourced properly in any way. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Time Magazine reviewed this film. A Google news search shows that other major circulation dailies such as the LA Times, and NY Times also have reviews although these are behind pay walls. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I saw it too, not unsurprising since it starred as protagonist the Italian star of low cost comedies. As for the reasons I'd opt for keep, quite a number of sources appear from the previous comments to exist, even if not all easily obtainable. Also, the film seems to be mentioned to some detail in Jackie Gleason's bio., but since only snippets are available I may be wrong, has a review in the Video Movie Guide 1996 , as also in the film magazine Films and filming ; another brief review comes from Leonard Maltin's TV movies and video guide , and also has an entry in The films of the seventies . This shows there are sources out there even if they may require some effort to access. There seem to be others from a fast look, but these mentioned should be enough to prove it passes the threshold of notability.--Aldux (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The guides you've mentioned above don't really establish notability as comprehensive guides are explicitly exlcuded in WP:NF. -- Whpq (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Awnser Yes, some of the sources are open to this type of objection, but if you observe that doesn't avail for all the sources mentioned.--Aldux (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to congratulate Joe Chill and Whpq on finding the Variety.com and Time Magazine sources, respectively. It's not easy to find online sources for a 1977 film, but in this case I can see two reliable sources clearly demonstrated in the debate.  These are critical reviews, and I think that's sufficient to refute the questions about notability that the nominator raises, leaving no grounds for deletion.  Keep accordingly.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.