Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Haunted House (2005 film) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The Haunted House (2005 film)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NFILM, as tagged since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk,  contribs ) 02:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, I have had a look on Amazon and for a Khmer language film to have 8 reviews on Amazon is something to take note of. There is another title for the film which is House of Haunted. I have a feeling we need to go to the East for our info. Karl Twist (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: I cannot find any good English-language sources. I've posted at WT:CAMBODIA to see if there are any good Khmer-language sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Written in 2008 the article still has no sources with significant coverage. Current sources have just minor mentions of this film mixed with non-independent comments from connected individuals. I know there's no time limit on finding sources but there's also nothing here suggesting this film is notable. My searches found nothing helpful. Difficult to search for such a common title but I do not limit my searches to English only. Of course happy to reconsider if better sources appear.  Fails WP:NFILM. Gab4gab (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have a feeling searching in a different way will turn up more about this film. Something about this has now intrigued me. Director Huy Yaleng has also done a film Vikaljarek which was very successful in China. We'll see. Karl Twist (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, I now my vote to a Solid Keep I believe this is the film on YouTube and it has 1,479,959 hits to date. It would have got a lot of recognition in Cambodia. That would satisfy me that it has been covered by sources we can't access. I'd say definitely notable. Karl Twist (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete with no prejudice to recreation when/if sources become available. Right now there are no sources out there that do anything other than establish that this film exists (WP:ITEXISTS) and can be watched. While yes, the film has views on YT and Amazon reviews, neither of those are things that give notability on Wikipedia, nor does it gain notability from other, related films or from its director or actors (WP:NOTINHERITED). What is needed here are things like news articles or in-depth mentions in academic sources, which I can't find. I tried doing a search in Khmer using Google Translate, but couldn't find anything either - although my search with that is quite limited. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply to Tokyogirl79 post 19:04, 10 February 2017. Hi Tokyogirl79, my reason for the mentioning the 1,479,959 now 1,509,242 YouTube hits and the 8 reviews on Amazon were not to give notability on Wikipedia. They were to indicate the level of interest in, and recognition of the film that doesn't come when something isn't notable. There are notable films on Wikipedia that don't have that many views on YouTube or reviews on Amazon. It rarely happens!. In an article about notable and respected Cambodian writer Mao Samnang, occasionally called Mao Somnang or Mao Som Nang, journalist / activist Socheata Vong comments in relation to her article "Who is the Cambodian ‘Rabbit Novelist’?" about Mao Samnang that the film "proved to be a success when it was on the screen". Karl Twist (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that stuff like that can be manipulated. You can purchase views on YouTube and Amazon reviews. Now I don't think for a moment that this is the case with this movie, however the fact is that it's easy to purchase things that make an item look more popular and it's happened often enough to where we can't even use those as something to justify that there's interest in something and use that to argue for inclusion. It's part of the reason why things like WP:ITSPOPULAR exists. It's insanely frustrating, especially with topics that by all accounts should have an article, but don't have the type of coverage that Wikipedia requires. I've run into this a lot with indie books and movies that have fairly large followings but fall *just* short of what is required on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well anything can be manipulated but that's not the case here. Be a bit like saying George Benson doesn't play on his own studio recordings. None of us are there when the recording session takes place but we're pretty sure that the liner notes on the album are correct that he plays the guitar where credited. The thing as it is with Khmer movies, we can't hope to access all that has been written about them in their native country. We have trouble even finding a little bit. This film has strong indications that it is notable. What's written in the Phnom Penh Post, the YouTube hits, the Amazon reviews, most of the reviewers have history reviewing multiple items, comment on the film by journalist Socheata Vong etc. In the past I have gone into libraries and found stuff fairly well to extensively covered in books that Bing, Google, Yahoo seldom or don't even mention. I appreciate what you say but I have every reason to believe that this film is well known and documented in it's own country. Quite possibly even in Laos and Vietnam. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Amazon customer reviews will never be seen as a sign of notability for the reasons I stated above. It doesn't matter if the reviewers are long established on there or not - they're seen as a WP:SPS even if we ignore the fact that someone can purchase reviews. I can understand where you're trying to come from with this, but these are arguments that will not hold up at AfD. If this is kept then these are arguments that can be very, very easily destroyed if someone decides to contest it at DRV or re-nominate it for AfD. The arguments for this have to be based on current policy. Heck, even the NBOOK guideline for bestseller lists specifically eliminates Amazon's bestseller lists as a source. That aside, a non-notable film or product can still get a lot of reviews on Amazon and other e-commerce sites. I've seen more than one self-published book get a large amount of reviews. It's actually one of the more frustrating things about indie and self-publishing, as you can have things that are huge in the SPS blogs yet never meet GNG because they aren't talked about in RS. I have friends that have popular books and/or films, yet they fall short of GNG. The bottom line is that if you want this to be kept and you want to ensure that it's kept in the future, you need to find an indication of notability that's in a place Wikipedia considers to be reliable. I'd recommend asking for help at the various applicable WikiProjects for help - I'll even post at WP:CAMBODIA. It's just that it's unlikely that you're going to get a solid keep without something Wikipedia would consider a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I think this is worth further investigation, as alot of notable actors worked on the film and there are a few promising english language sources that I found from national sources AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that further investigation is warranted. João Do Rio (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the YouTube link provided is not the official channel (Link and no sources have been offered at this AfD, only that further investigation is warranted. Once the investigation is complete, then the article can be recreated by an interested editor, if indeed sources are found. Until such time, this content does not add value to the project. No prejudice to recreation with reliable sources.


 * I also note that the article has had plenty of chances for improvement since the first AfD in 2014: Articles for deletion/The Haunted House (2005 film). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply to K.e.coffman post 01:16, 27 February 2017. The Youtube link is not supposed to be the official channel. It's provided here to merely to serve as an example of the attention this movie has been getting. Again, the problem is that looking through Western goggles, the vision is tunneled when it comes to a country such as Cambodia. With the amount of interest that it has generated on Youtube, it's got to be more than a sure bet that this film has been covered by media in it's own country. The views are up to 1,600,503 now. Socheata Vong said that the film was a success it it's country. The article on the Phnom Penh Post alludes to the high probability that it is notable. I easily see many more reasons to keep the article than simply getting rid of  it. Karl Twist (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - current sourcing has not been improved in years, and searches do not turn up enough to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. If an editor wants to take it on as a project, then please draftify. It has sat way too long without improvement to the sourcing to let it remain in the hopes that someone will put the effort into it it needs.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources are out there - indeed, three have been linked within the comments above - so it's flawed to say that the article should be deleted because it does not contain reliable sources - deletion isn't cleanup. See WP:NEXIST. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep sources barely clear GNG, but its old enough not to be a hoax, and there's no harm done in preserving it with the history. Inlinetext (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2017 (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.