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 speedy keep. Nomination withdraw, no opposing views. (non-admin closure) DonaldD23 talk to me 01:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ambushed (1998 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I just added five reviews from the very first page of the Google search, so it definitely does not fail and I don't know where you thought you were looking. Why didn't you use Google? --Nicholas0 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:NEXIST, the sources have to be “suitable.” With the exception of TV Guide, none of the reviews you provided are suitable enough IMHO. The Film Creator (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of the reviews are from independent sources that are legitimate review websites (not blogs), so they are all good sources according to Wikipedia's standards and there is absolutely no justification for considering them unsuitable apart from your "IMHO". "IMHO" is not a legitimate basis for anything and it's really sad that that's the only thing you have on which to base your argument. --Nicholas0 (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Chucks Connection is a SPS, so in order to establish that it's a RS there's a need to show where it's been cited as a RS by other RS. This is usually easiest done by showing where it's been used as a source by academic and scholarly sources. The onus is more on you as the person supplying it to show where it's reliable. That said, I do see where it's been used as a RS in the following academic press books: Rowman, Wiley, and Elsevier Science. It's also used as a source in this book put out by Lerner. That said, the focus of the sourcing is more on its chronicling of Converse history. It could probably be used as a RS for film reviews, although it's not the main focus, but it wouldn't be the strongest possible source. The Ringer is probably usable, as I see some evidence of it being used as a source with stuff like this.

Now, The Action Elite doesn't seem to have been used as a RS in any academic/scholarly sourcing I can find, so that looks like it's not usable to establish notability. Actionfreunde.de has the same issue. I'm going to remove these two from the article. I'm also going to try and balance the reception section out a bit more, since the coverage is pretty uneven, with undue emphasis put on the Chucks website's review.

The thing to keep in mind is that it's best to use the strongest possible sourcing and avoid SPS unless you can establish how it's a RS, as this can actually make a topic seem less notable rather than more. It's honestly pretty rare for a SPS to be usable on here and when stuff goes up for AfD the sourcing gets extra scrutiny. It's not a case of "I want to win" as much as it's just that we want the article to be able to hold up notability-wise in the future. It's entirely possible for an article to get renominated a few months to a year down the line if notability still looks shaky. It's better to rake sourcing across the coals, so to speak, and voice any concerns about them, as that way if someone does try to renominate it, we can point to the prior AfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh! Also, audience score typically aren't included on Wikipedia, as it's seen as just indiscriminate data. The only times that audience scores on RT (and by extension ratings on places like IMDb and Amazon) are mentioned in articles is when there's extensive coverage about the ratings. I always like to highlight Saving Christmas as a hilarious example of this type of coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at The Ringer, the film is only an offhand mention so it's a trivial source at best. The quote is also somewhat taken out of context, as it's not about that specific film- rather it's about his film career as a whole. You could maybe write something like "In a review of Dickerson's Surviving the Game The Ringer noted that Ambushed, along with his entire filmography, (quote)". However even then this is still not the greatest source to base notability on, as it could very easily be argued that the mention is trivial since it's not in-depth about the specific movie at hand. I'm going to remove this one from the article as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The two newspaper sources are just star ratings on routine TV listings, not reviews. The thing with these, is that there's no info on who gives the ratings. It's also seen as kind of routine and there's no in-depth look at the films. At best they'd be either trivial or a database type listing. With AllMovie, the reviews on the site are usually seen as capsule reviews that don't go into enough depth to be seen as a RS. I don't always agree with that, but it's a widespread enough opinion to where I typically don't use AllMovie. In this case the review is very, very short so it's going to be harder to argue for it to be usable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The noir sources are trivial at best, but can be used to back up the basic detail that it's been classified by some as falling into this genre. I also took a look at the journal article and it has the same issue as The Ringer source, in that the quote isn't about this film in specific but rather a larger group of films. The way it's written is fine enough, but I wouldn't call it a review or anything that would establish notability. I'm going to switch it to a themes section, though. It'd work fine as a trivial source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Now scrutiny aside, I did find a review from The Guardian and added it. I'm going to see what else I can find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you so much for finding the review from The Guardian, User:ReaderofthePack. To me, the reviews from TV Guide and The Guardian are enough to pass NFSOURCES, NFO and NEXIST. I therefore withdraw the nomination. The Film Creator (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2022 (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.