Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aswang (1994 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The result was Withdrawn. Bungle's sourcing has shown this did receive some significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. As there is not any outstanding Delete comments I have withdrawn this request. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aswang (1994 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)

This was a contested PROD due to it having reviews. This film fails to meet the required criteria in WP:NFILM. The reviews are by unknown critics as in there is no identified author for the 2 provided. I could not find any better. There is no indication of it even being close to meeting any other of the criteria. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews at DVD Talk (a Wikipedia Reliable Source) [1] and a Critic Review at Rotten Tomatoes [2] meets the 2 review minimum for WP:NFILM. The TV Guide review [3] is considered a reliable source even if no author is identified as Wikipedia considers TV Guide reliable. Film Threat [4] can also be considered reliable as there is editorial oversight and it is not a blog run by one person. There is also a Turkish review at Oteki Sinema [5], which also appears to have editorial oversight and not a blog. DonaldD23 talk to me 09:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for reviews to be accepted towards WP:NFILM is not that it comes from a reliable source but from a nationally known critic, without an actual byline we can't confirm this. Reviews in themselves are not reliable sources as they are opinion pieces. This negates both the Filmthreat and TVGuide reviews as we have no way to know who actually wrote them, the same way we would negate any other news source without an identified author. The Rotten Tomatoes review is actually this one and I would accept that as being potentially a nationally known critic. That only leaves us with one acceptable review. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, i'd probably also be leaning keep on this one, not just because of the reviews discussed by Donald D23 above, but as I have found some significant coverage from newspapers around the time, namely from The Capital Times which discussed the showing at the Sundance Film Festival and quite an extensive interview with the producers by Star Tribune. There is also another fairly substantial article from The Journal Times and all 3 are more than just passing mentions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Bungle's source have convinced me this probably is notable enough for a stub entry. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:20, 19 December 2021 (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.