Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manay Po

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The result was Speedy keep (NAC) The nomination has been withdrawn, and nobody else is supporting a "delete" outcome, so closing per SK1 Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manay Po

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Film with questionable notability, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Ng Sablay Wgolf (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

aka:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently neutral toward a brand new article sent to AFD within minutes of being contributed. And sure, while what was nominated looked poor, it was pretty easy to do some WP:BEFORE and improve its format quite a bit. Its sheer number of involved notables and its two nominations for film awards notable (even if only) to the Philippines, infers that it likely may have enough coverage in Filipino or Tagalog sources not crawled or indexed properly by Google News. I will await input from editors better able to search that part of the world. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am going to go now with a KEEP per easily found significant coverage in Philippine Daily Inquirer,[1] [2] and where there's one, there's more. WP:NF is met. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as the topic is notable but the contributor apparently misunderstands WP:NF and MOS:FILM, we'd do far better by encouraging him to gain clue than we would by deleting his offerings because they are poorly written.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG/WP:NF: [3], [4], [5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-Another odd case here, but looks notable now. Wgolf (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2016 (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.