Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Into The Arms of Danger (2020 Film)

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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Into The Arms of Danger (2020 Film)

[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)

Doesn't appear to be a notable film, so fails WP:NFILM only "coverage" appears to be from Lifetime fanblogs. Praxidicae (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contains notable actors already listed on wiki, one of which is an Oscar nominated actor. Successfully distributed nationally and is currently airing internationally (see references), also available on Amazon Prime https://www.amazon.com/INTO-ARMS-DANGER-Inc-Entertainment/dp/B08BF1RB5R

There are thousands of films on wiki that are far less notable AndrewBrea1866 (talk

AndrewBrea1866 notability isn't inherited. Praxidicae (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be several independent verifiable reviews covering the film that are cited within the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to point out which? Because I see fanblogs and non-rs. Praxidicae (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For further clarification, I can't tell what reviews you're referring to, Donaldd23:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11962590/		ugen, not reliable	just a listing and not rs	✘ No
https://www.amazon.com/INTO-ARMS-DANGER-Inc-Entertainment/dp/B08BF1RB5R				✘ No
https://www.mylifetime.com/movies/into-the-arms-of-danger	Lifetime movie listing	~ it's reliable in terms of casting information and summary, but not for anything else		✘ No
https://www.vudu.com/content/movies/details/Into-the-Arms-of-Danger/1459650		not sure how a film link can be a reliable source other than proving it exists	not coverage in the slightest	✘ No
https://villainous-beauties.fandom.com/wiki/Momma_(Into_the_Arms_of_Danger)		It's a fanwiki		✘ No
https://hiddenremote.com/2020/03/16/into-the-arms-of-danger-craziest-moments/		This is a TMZ version of lifetime movie reviews		✘ No
https://lifetimeuncorked.com/2020/03/16/into-the-arms-of-danger-2020-lifetime/		a lifetime movie fan blog		✘ No
https://vocal.media/criminal/lifetime-review-into-the-arms-of-danger		Another variant of medium.com		✘ No
https://letterboxd.com/film/into-the-arms-of-danger/		A simple listing that appears to be based off of other wikis and imdb		✘ No
https://www.programme-television.org/films-telefilms/action-aventure/la-famille-du-peche	just a listing			✘ No
https://www.linternaute.com/television/telefilm-la-famille-du-peche-p5069398/	same as above			✘ No
https://cinestera.com.br/ambulancia-do-terror-lifetime-movies-apresenta-jovem-feita-refem-por-uma-familia-de-psicopatas/		unlikely to be reliable in the context of independent reliability with editorial oversight as it appears to allow any joe to write reviews		✘ No
https://www.cineplayers.com/filmes/ambulancia-do-terror	listing, again			✘ No
https://filmow.com/ambulancia-do-terror-t297369/	listing, again			✘ No
https://filmow.com/ambulancia-do-terror-t297369/ficha-tecnica/	same as above			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Praxidicae (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I do not agree with your assessment of the provided citations and find them unfair. More citations have now been added, and I will continue to do so. Here's IMdB's brief list of external articles: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11962590/externalreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt Thanks and appreciate your help! AndrewBrea1866 (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RSP. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to reiterate for the closer, my extensive review of sources and the lack of policy based keeps here and non response when asked what reliable sources they are referring to. Praxidicae (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more citations of external press articles and tried to clean up some of the citations. Please let me know if it would help if I deleted the noncontributory citations. Thank you again. AndrewBrea1866 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources fail WP:RS and this fails WP:GNG. Praxidicae did a good job at summarizing in the table above, I went through and completely agree with her assessment, this should be deleted. -- Dane ^talk 21:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but the sources have been updated and changed and the assessment table above is no longer relevant AndrewBrea1866 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AndrewBrea1866 I have already explained this numerous times but movie listings, sites like iMDb are neither reliable nor do they lend themselves to notability. The new sources you've added are a mix of obvious press releases and listings. Praxidicae (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That is very solid reference analysis by Praxidicae. scope_creep^Talk 12:46, 26 October 2020 (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.