Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So Happy Together (film)


 * 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   speedy keep per WP:SK. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 23:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

So Happy Together (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relies on IMDb as its sole source. IMDb is generally not considered reliable. LukeSurlt c 07:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Could not find reliable sources about this film . Moswento talky 13:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Changing vote in light of sources found by Arxiloxos. Moswento talky 07:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Was nominated for the Metro Manila Film Festival Award for Best Picture.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Nomination is not among the criteria for notability set in WP:NF. 舎利弗 (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 *  Weak delete  Weak keep - I suspect this may be a language barrier issue. There should be something reliable out there for such a nomination, even if it itself doesn't confer notability. After all, the only reason some awards do are because sources can be assumed. Best I could find in English was a couple bloggy-type reviews and verification of its existence. Hopefully someone better (i.e. familiar at all) with Tagalog will be able to find sources. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  20:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (Update: Given the sources linked by below, I've changed my !vote from weak delete to weak keep. Seems sufficient to pass NFILM.) --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  07:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Name:
 * Director:
 * Writer:
 * Studio:
 * Director:
 * Writer:
 * Studio:
 * Director:
 * Writer:
 * Studio:
 * Studio:


 * Comment. HighBeam yields coverage from the Manila Bulletin: . None of these are particularly deep coverage, but the last one does confirm the IMDb awards page statement that Eric Quizon won the Golden Screen Award for Best Actor for this picture. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting WP:NF. Article and project will benefit by it remaining and being improved through regular editing. In this instance, deletion does not serve to improve Wikipedia. .  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 13:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:NF: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." Have you found sources that the rest of us haven't? I understand the usefulness argument, but given the number of subjects that exist in the world, not having standards would mean Wikipedia would just turn into the web and cease to be an encyclopedia. Therefore the subjective assessment that it is WP:USEFUL isn't typically factored into deletion debates. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  14:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Claiming a "subjective" WP:USEFUL is no more helpful than claiming a "subjective" WP:WEDONTNEEDIT. Simply put, as multiple independent reliable sources have been brought forward speaking about the film and the many notables involved, WP:NF is met. Per WP:WIP, we do not require immediate perfection if notability is shown. Thanks for trying to read my mind. We do not expect world-wide coverage. Notable to the Philippines or in Tagalog is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. . 06:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha! 's links blended in with all of the find sources links. Didn't see them. It's still not a home run for WP:NF by any means, but I agree it's passable. I'll change my !vote accordingly and take back my lecture about WP:USEFUL. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  07:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The Manila Bulletin is a major national newspaper; the first article cited is mainly a plot synopsis, but the entire article is about So Happy Together. The newspaper meets the requirements for WP:RS, so the article as it stands is well sourced (the same Bulletin articles could serve as cites in the 'Plot' section.) - Neonorange (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article and its sourcing have been much improved since the nomination, I am happy for this to be considered withdrawn. --LukeSurlt c 10:45, 16 June 2014 (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.