Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transit (2012 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 keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transit (2012 film)

[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)

This film was tagged for notability by another editor. I removed the tag because it has 8 Critic Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, including Variety and The Guardian.

The other editor said 8 reviews from RT is irrelevant and stated, "No, in fact - the consensus at MOS:FILM has been is that 8 reviews is NOT enough for films - remove aggregator again." This is NOT true, as MOS:FILMCRITICS (which is the policy for using RT as a source) does not list a minimum number of critic reviews at RT for inclusion in an article.

I feel this article should be KEPT and should have the notability tag removed, but when I remove it another editor adds it back. Lets decide once and for all, is this film notable enough to be kept and have the notability tag removed, or should it be deleted? Thank you. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It's got critical reviews in the Guardian, Variety and the London Evening Standard. Although Rotten tomatoes only provides links to one of them: [1] (the London Evening Standard appears to be a re-direct now). It's not a very good movie apparently, but it's at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another first at AfD, the nominator actually wanting to keep an article. Fun times. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And here's one from Roger Ebert.com [2] Oaktree b (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Roger Ebert one is regarding Transit (2018 film) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oops, too many films with this name. Still passes FILM I think. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found a Time Out review which is enough for WP:NFILM and this is also supported by lengthier reviews in Cinevue, Flick Filosopher and Brian Orndorf. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews from The Guardian, Time Out (magazine), Variety (magazine), and London Evening Standard, which are WP:RS, independent, and significant coverage, demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. Moreover, these are nationally known publications passing WP:NFILM criteria 1. VickKiang (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's many reviews as previous editors noted are significant, reliable, and independent, so the article meets WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has enough reviews for notability. --Jamarast (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As evidenced above, there are enough reviews published in reliable independent sources to make the film notable per WP:GNG. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above has many reviews passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2023 (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.