Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyas Pogi: Ang Pagbabalik


 * 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. Overall consensus is to Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 01:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Alyas Pogi: Ang Pagbabalik

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Filipino:

Contested PROD, Non notable film where no reliable independent sources exist to demonstrate notability. Winner 42 Talk to me!  15:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * English equiv.:(
 * Year:
 * Awards:
 * Director:
 * Producer::
 * Studio:
 * Distributor:


 * Keep and allow this brand new article to be expanded over time and through attention of Philippines editors. Yes, sourcing Philippines films is often difficult... and specially when the topic is pre-internet. But this receiving FAMAS Award recognition allows a reasonable supposition that it did receive press coverage 26 years ago. As "some" sources ARE available, there is no need to toss it because the nominated version did not use them.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's no online archive of newspapers that exist for the period when this film was shown (August 1999). However, one of the actors in the movie is now a senator, and "Alyas Pogi" has been used to refer to him in a lengthy opinion piece, and by the president himself. This most likely shows that the movie was notable enough for people to refer to the actor more than a decade after the film was shown. – H T  D  07:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as (1) it fails to make a claim to notability under WP:NFILM and (2) it fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Lastly, notability is not inherited, just because the actor is famous does not make all his films famous. Even were this material to be kept, it should be as part of an article about the trilogy, and not as a separate article. --Bejnar (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry , but you are mistaken. Sourced as wining FAMAS Award recognition IS an attribute of notability under WP:NF, AND being spoken of many years later, IS an indicator that the the film was notable enough 25 years previously. We do not expect that films released in the Philippines before the internet would have continued commentary and analysis decades later. Read WP:NTEMP and WP:UNKNOWNHERE. You are quite welcome to do your pre-internet Phillipines research and write about the other two films, but you would likely have to fly there and hire a local to visit libraries and universities for hard-copy non-English news sources unavailable online. Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It sucks that this article is in the time period where there is no online newspaper archive. If this was from the late 1980s to mid 1990s, and from the early 2000s to 2003-ish, we could find something. The Google Newspaper Archive doesn't have anything for this time period. – H T  D  15:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - A FAMAS award in the Philippines is analogous to an American film winning an Oscar. --- Tito Pao (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per MQS, HTD, Titopao, who correctly note that FAMAS award & nomination sufficiently establish notability, especially given the desire to minimize systemic geographic and FUTON bias. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2015 (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.