Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom and Jerry: Blast Off to Mars

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. It's WP:SNOWing. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry: Blast Off to Mars

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable direct to video film, only coverage is reprints of press releases, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The only two sources look like they come directly or almost directly from the film's PR department. PJvanMill (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG based on having been reviewed in at least three reliable sources (Radio Times, Screen Rant (a WP:NEWSORG as it has an editorial team and professional reviewers), and a book on Mars movies published by McFarland): 1 2 3. These reviews clearly aren't based on press releases as they are all negative about the movie. Please note per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST we should not simply look at the state of referencing in the article as it stands but look to see whether there are any other potential sources. FOARP (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources that should also be considered: a review in the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet here, a review in the book Lexikon des internationalen Films - Filmjahr 2011 here, and finally a very long review on the German website MDPRESS, which, judging from their "about us" page is a pass for WP:NEWSORG as it is a professionally-run publication with an editorial team. FOARP (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the above comment. The article mentions the three reliable sources (based on WP:NEWSORG) independent of the production companies that reviewed the movie, therefore it passes WP:GNG. A.J. Shulman (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above comments, but also it is notable as being the first work by Joseph Barbara after his long-time partner, William Hanna, died. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not looked at the book, but the two online reviews are very short. WP:NFSOURCES says that "capsule reviews", which both of these would fall under, are not significant coverage. Thus, these two sources should not be counted towards notability. PJvanMill (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It turns out the bit in the book is also a capsule review: [1]. So that is significant coverage in exactly zero independent, reliable secondary sources so far - and we need multiple. PJvanMill (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that these are capsule reviews. A capsule review is a sentence or two (or even the single word "No"), whilst these are extended paragraphs. Even if you think that a review has to be longer, the MDPress and Common Sense Media reviews are multiple paragraphs in length. FOARP (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I’d say the review in the Radio Times constitutes significant coverage, and there is also this review:[2] by Common Sense Media, which definitely provides SIGCOV. Therefore, I think this passes NFILM. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Radio Times piece and Mars in the Movies demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's now enough sources and reviews for it to have significant coverage. - Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 8:44, 11 June 2020 (AEST)
Keep With the two new sources added since my comments, I think it passes the GNG. PJvanMill (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yip. scope_creep^Talk 19:01, 15 June 2020 (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.