Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Brother with perfect timing

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The result was keep: withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Brother with perfect timing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Blatantly promotional, no news hits, and rotten tomatoes has no reviews. I'd say that this fails to meet notability standards. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree wholeheartedly on the blatant promotion part, but I am finding some reviews, one of which is from the NYT. (Well, one review which means there might be a few more.) I'm going to try to see what I can do for this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Keep I had to go to the google books vault for most of the reviews on this one since the film (and most of the reviews) were written before internet reviews became a big thing, but I found enough by reliable sources to justify keeping it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Keep Appears to meet wp:notability. Writing needs improvement for neutrality; sounds promotional. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some search hits if you did deep enough, though it's pre-internet-era and foreign so not covered in all the main sources; also a few references in Google Scholar in articles/books on Black South African music. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it meets the general notability criteria ("has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject") as well as film notability criteria for being the subject of "publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release." Rotten Tomatoes was launched in 1999 so, as described in WP:RTMC, it is not a reliable tool to gauge anything having to do with films released before that. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Adequate sources seem to have been provided to establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn - I wasn't able to find anything, but there was stuff to be found, so I will withdraw this. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:03, 14 February 2012 (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.