Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papunta Ka Pa Lang, Pabalik Na Ako




 * 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. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 16:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Papunta Ka Pa Lang, Pabalik Na Ako

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject fails WP:NFILM. The citations from Manila Standard are mere mentions. I couldn't find anything significant with AV Club or Rotten Tomatoes, who I would expect to have a review. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If judged insufficiently notable for a standalone page, redirect to Jun Aristorenas with the note quoting Cinema of the Philippines .- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank)  19:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There aren't many reviews for old films on Rotten Tomatoes or any other review website. Generally, present-day news websites don't have articles or reviews available for such old films. But, during BEFORE, I came across the possibility of offline sources, so I decided to mark it as reviewed.  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛  𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜  01:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What does "I came across the possibility of offline sources" even mean? You don't have sources to point to but you think it's always possible sources might exist in hardcopy somewhere? Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chris troutman, This source has a full paragraph about the film. Another source provides a paragraph about the film. Additionally, a third source has one paragraph about the film. This film is also known as 'You Are Going to the Place That I Have Just Returned from Alone,' and some sources cover it under this title. The film's original language is Filipino, and there are many sources in Filipino, but I couldn't find much information due to language barriers. After conducting WP:BEFORE, I concluded that this subject is notable enough to warrant an article.  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛  𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜  02:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I remember this movie (though I haven't watched it) lololol.
 * To echo DreamRimmer's comment above, I don't think it's a good idea to rely on Rotten Tomatoes or AV Club to assert the notability of Filipino films. Those two websites tend to be US-/English-centric, so under that argument you might as well argue that many other non-US, non-UK, non European, non-English films as non-notable, even if they were directed by a well-known director and cast some notable actors in them. IMDB is at best incomplete, there are many other Filipino titles that have not yet been listed on IMDB.
 * For most Filipino films made before the 2000s, there's a chance that the references we'd need would be in print, not websites or online sources. (Especially true the older a film is.) DreamRimmer already cited a few which are good sources. There would probably be some mentions in academic journals like the ones published by the UP College of Mass Communications or the likes of Nick Deocampo, Teddy Co, Nick Tiongson and many others; had I have more time, I would love to do this myself. Tabloids and old entertainment magazines (some likely defunct but at the time enjoyed a wide readership) during the era would also likely have some mentions of this movie, especially considering that this was a Viva Films production, it is very unlikely that the press at the time would have ignored this especially considering that Eddie Garcia is on it.
 * That said...if a keep is deemed insufficient, a redirect would be an acceptable compromise for me. While the director and the actors are notable, I don't think it is regarded as an exceptional film even by Philippine standards. A redirect to either Viva Films, Jun Aristorenas or Eddie Garcia would be fine by me. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: Source 1 contains an entire section which talks about the film. Sources 2 and 3 contain a section which talks about the production and plot of the film. Source 4 contains a section which talks about the updates on the film. The last source contains a brief description of the film being a hit in cinemas. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NFILM. ASTIG 😎🙃 14:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments above.  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛  𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜  15:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as the sources show notability and they discuss the film. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NFILM per arguments of Astig and DreamRimmer. 4 out of 5 reliable sources are in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2023 (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.