Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child in the Night

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!} 23:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Child in the Night

[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)

Can't find evidence that this meets WP:NFILM. No reviews or later critical commentary located on a search of Google, GBooks, Newspapers.com. PROD tag removed without improvement or comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is one critic review at Rotten Tomatoes.
WP:NFILM calls for two RS reviews, so one more is needed. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The review on RT is from "blu-ray.com", which as a website has none of the hallmarks of reliability, including an editorial policy or staff page. There's also no indication that the author, Brian Orndorf, is a "nationally-recognized critic" as required by
WP:NFILM. Although he has "Tomatometer" status on RT, that in itself is not indicative of national recognition - hundreds of critics have this status, and it's granted on application. If he were a Top Critic, that would be different - that's a rigorously screened subset of Tomatometer critics, and only critics who are "well-established, influential, and prolific" are designated "Top Critics", so I would happily accept that as indicators of national recognition. But simply existing as a listed critic is insufficient. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The one review from Rotten Tomatoes does not add towards the multiple reviews required. We need reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found just enough coverage to justify a keep for this film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews added to article by Reader of the Pack. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 23:36, 10 February 2022 (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.