Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samurai Vampire Bikers from Hell

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 merge to Scott Shaw. Sandstein 13:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Vampire Bikers from Hell

[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)

An article from 2006 about a very minor horror film. In more than a decade, no sources have been added and no evidence of notability has appeared. The two reliable sources I could find: here and here are the briefest possible passing mentions, making it clear that this is an entirely insignificant film that has never found an audience. Railfan23 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Railfan23 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Railfan23, Looks like you are busy targeting the films of one filmmaker. Like I said in the other response I checked the official website and the two books you link do mention the film. It appears to also be mentioned in two other books, Livro Mais Vampiros no Cinema and Showgirls, Teen Wolves, and Astro Zombies: A Film Critic's Year-Long Quest to Find the Worst Movie Ever Made as well as a number of magazines. I am not a WP expert but I believe that a title being considered important enough to be written about in a book means that the film has notability. A google search shows that the film has a number of pages of strong results and there has been a podcast made about the movie [1] plus a YouTube title parody [2]. I think all of this leads to notability. Chinanski (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for a source to support notability requires significant coverage in the source. A passing mention that this film exists does not reach that standard. The sources currently in the article are the very definition of insignificant coverage, so they don't show that this film is notable. The podcast at ThatShelf is more substantial and needs a deeper look. Railfan23 (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, a wikiarticle appears to have been made on each of Shaw's films on the assumption that they are individually notable, they are not (where are the reviews from reliable sources, significant awards?), therefore (selective) merge, without a redirect, to a section of Scott Shaw that discusses his movies. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Added a few references found on google search and google books. This may or may not help the decision. Thanks, Chinanski (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 01:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge None of those sources gives more than a brief TV-guide style description of the movie. No remotely in depth coverage. --Slashme (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2019 (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.