Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Her Defense


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In Her Defense

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV; found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  01:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This appears to be a not particularly notable direct to video movie which does not satisfy WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment One reliable review, at CineMagazine  Donald D23   talk to me  12:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete If the only review in a RS is in a Dutch outlet for a Canadian film starring two prominent American actors, that's a pretty good indicator that this passed by with minimal notice. In other words, fails the WP:42 test. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 18:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources for it to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (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.