Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas & Friends: Misty Island Rescue


 * 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 is that GNG is met 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 17:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends: Misty Island Rescue

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A minor Thomas and Friends movie that doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The recently added review (thank you Donaldd23) is the only reliable one I can find via Google searches and is the only one listed at Rotten Tomatoes. So this subject fails both WP:FILM and WP:GNG. Laplorfill (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Laplorfill (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Found another review, but not sure if DVD Dizzy is considered a WP:RS. [] Donaldd23 (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Won't we have to get rid of the rest of the Thomas movie articles then (minus Magic Railroad, of course)? --Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, each article is judged on its own merits with consideration to the amount of reliable sources coverage for each one, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as well as the two reviews including Common Sense Media which is used as a critic at Rotten Tomatoes I found a full length review at Blu-ray.com here so WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't think it passes WP:GNG, surely not WP:FILM. The Blue-ray.com review does not pass as significant coverage in my opinion. I found this [], which does struck as reliable or significant either. Kolma8 (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - found reviews in The New Zealand Herald and The British Railway Stories, both of which appear to be reliable and independent and constitute significant coverage. -- Ashley yoursmile!  07:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep- per my comment above. Ashley  yoursmile!  10:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think enough reviews have been found and mentioned at this point (five by my count) to pass WP:NFILM. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2021 (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.