Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mae Bia

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mae Bia[edit]

[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)

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability since June 2017. PROD removed because "deprodding -- while article lacks sources, description if taken at face value would pass NFILM and so requires further investigation; sources are likely in Thai", but I found nothing of merit (even in the other language Wikipedia articles). Donaldd23 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Really nothing can be found that helps it to pass WP:GNG/WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major film, controversial in its time and still notorious today for its depicted eroticism, enough for writers to re-visit almost twenty years later, like this Mthai article.[1] The article previously had a link to a review on the Movieseer website.[2] (I understand their reviewers are staff writers.) While most articles mentioning it today are in the context of the novel and its various adaptations,[3][4][5] online contemporaneous sources include this article from the Academic Services Journal of Prince of Songkla University.[6] News coverage of the day, which likely existed, will naturally no longer be available online, but should be easily found enough in library archives. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above which include reviews so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul 012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 09:20, 3 February 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.