Deletion of Beyond Beyond

Comment: and suggest a courteous withdrawal by the well-intended {{u|JamesBWatson|nominator}}.  Yes the article when https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beyond_Beyond&type=revision&diff=728957815&oldid=726328730 first taken notice of by him was |weak, but so what?  When |due diligence shows the topic (even a |non-English one) has |multiple sources available, inclusion criteria are met even if they're not in English or immediately used. I remind of  and . and have grateful thanks to {{u|Tokyogirl79}}, for her |simple improvements making notability quite clear
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UGLY||WP:BEFORE||WP:NONENG||WP:GNG||WP:NEXIST||WP:HANDLE||WP:IMPROVE)

Comment: as imdb link page to external reviews shows 18 reviews http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3480110/externalreviews?ref_=tt_ql_op_5 here which include reliable sources such as Cinemagazine( dutch), Hollywood Reporter (Russia),Common sense media, and a number of French, German and Swedish rs for films. Passes  including the already cited Variety review
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)