Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dangerous Intuition


 * 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. ✗ plicit  03:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Dangerous Intuition

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable television film, does not have significant independent coverage per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY 2008 18:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found multiple reviews as well as mentions in the Los Angeles Times and Variety. The director is notable and the actors are well-known and notable. Many articles link to this article. There are also articles for the film on French Wikipedia and Italian Wikipedia. --Nicholas0 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I don't see a pass of WP:NFP or WP:NFSOURCES in the sources or in my own search. Only the horrornews story is more than a passing mention, upcoming showing, or plot summary. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom and the above delete comment. No significant coverage to pass GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Vairety and LA times sources that mentioned are definitely not significant in any way, and I could not find any significant sources on Google either. — F ORMAL D UDE  ( talk ) 21:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, just about fails GNG and NFILM. The article from Los Angeles Times is only a passing mention and several of the other sources do not seem reliable or establish notability. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.