Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Weird Villa

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 no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Weird Villa

[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)

Fails the requirements of WP:NFILM, lacks any verifiable secondary sources or references. Dan arndt (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Cambodia. Dan arndt (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, considering it may meet this criterion for film notability: "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio". Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this (The one reference on the page when this discussion started (CInema Online) claims the film was a box-office success and places it among the best 5 Cambodian horror films of all time). If not, redirect to Horror films of Cambodia.—— MY, OH, MY! (mushy yank) — 13:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, one of the general notability guideline's criteria is that coverage should come from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. In this case there is no collaborating evidence that it was a box-office success and the statement that it is amongst the best 5 Cambodian horror films of all time is highly subjective and not the opinion of an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. Dan arndt (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 27 June 2023 (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.