Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Save Virgil


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Save Virgil

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not a notable film. Found no reviews, no in-depth sources, no anything beyond Wikipedia page clones, IMDb, various junk sites, and a single interview with the creator that makes up a small part of an obscure book. Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  06:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete we lack adequate sourcing to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was truly shocked to find coverage for this short, but it's there and it's just enough to pass by NFILM. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You’re a lot more determined than I am. Dronebogus (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * TBH, I almost gave up partway through because there was just so much junk out there. It makes up 99.9% of the search results. I suppose it having Gary Coleman in it probably piqued my interest. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Per sources added to article by ReaderofthePack Donald D23   talk to me  14:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Per added sources, appears notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:36, 2 June 2022 (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.