Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Changer


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Time Changer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Film is not notable. Doesn't meet WP:MOVIE. Dkchana (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sure it does. Reviewed by 4 major newspapers. Charlotte Observer Lawrence Toppman; Miami Herald Keith Cassidy; Variety Scott Foundas; Austin Chronicle Marjorie Baumgarten. --GRuban (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The reviews you list do not meet the Criteria of WP:MOVIE which requires wide distribution and full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Sorry, but this falls way short. Dkchana (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, no, I'm afraid you've skipped the forest and gone straight to the trees. The base case that WP:MOVIE starts with is the General notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The rest of it is merely for those that don't meet the GNG. Those four make plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources. And if they weren't enough (which they are), there are also the Sacramento Bee, Ocala Star-Banner, Fresno Bee, Southeast Missourian, and the Toledo Blade. --GRuban (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. (was keep) Plenty of reviews, good-quality article, made money. Faulty nomination: not specific about which criteria of WP:MOVIE were not met. Nom is misreading WP:MOVIE in a strangely strict interpretation. --Lexein (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Do not interpret guidelines as rules. Variety and the Sacramento Bee are certainly nationally recognized, and the reviews are full length, and their reviewers are both Rotten Tomatoes "Top Critics". The film was distributed nationwide, as cited in Variety. I would respectfully suggest withdrawal of the nomination. --Lexein (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG, see news sources in article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep It definately passes WP:GNG has accurate references, is start class in legnth, I dont see how this has violated a single guideline. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as WP:JNN is a poor deletion rationale, multiple reliable sources are available with due diligence, and nominator has shown a misunderstanding of the applicable notability guidelines.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Numerous independent, reliable sources with significant coverage as noted by the users above. GuterTag (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. It seems like a case of WP:Tag bombing to me. There are just so many Afds by this nominator, it is hard to count them. Time to stop. History2007 (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep GRuban found sources.   D r e a m Focus  02:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because the cast is redlink hell doesn't make it non-notable. There are enough valid sources here to pass WP:GNG and I'm going to err on the side of caution even if this article is a little weak on the WP:FILM side. Trusilver  13:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep With the reviews listed above this meets WP:MOVIE. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2011 (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.