Deletion of Tom and Jerry: Blast Off to Mars

Comment: I agree with the above comment. The article mentions the three reliable sources (based on ) independent of the production companies that reviewed the movie, therefore it passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:NEWSORG||WP:GNG)

Comment: Appears to pass  based on having been reviewed in at least three reliable sources (Radio Times, Screen Rant (a  as it has an editorial team and professional reviewers), and a book on Mars movies published by McFarland): https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y7R5DQAAQBAJ&pg=PT254&dq=%22Tom+and+Jerry:+Blast+Off+to+Mars%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKjP-lr_LpAhVUTsAKHQm6DXYQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22Tom%20and%20Jerry%3A%20Blast%20Off%20to%20Mars%22&f=false 1 https://screenrant.com/tom-jerry-films-best-worst-imdb-rating/ 2 https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fpJr8eYOzKMJ:https://www.radiotimes.com/film/tpwf/tom-and-jerry-blast-off-to-mars/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk 3. These reviews clearly aren't based on press releases as they are all negative about the movie. Please note per  and  we should not simply look at the state of referencing in the article as it stands but look to see whether there are any other potential sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NEWSORG||WP:BEFORE||WP:NEXIST)

Comment: I've not looked at the book, but the two online reviews are ''very'' short.  says that "capsule reviews", which both of these would fall under, are not significant coverage. Thus, these two sources should not be counted towards notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFSOURCES)