Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mga Mata ni Anghelita

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was withdrawn; speedy keep‎.(non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mga Mata ni Anghelita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Given its edit history, you'd expect this 70-episode primetime soap to have WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. But the only sources in the article are WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs (the link to its YouTube page) or tabloid content that includes WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the series (and is otherwise excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST). My WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing else beyond a WP:PRESSRELEASE, and the only reviews I found were on WP:USERGENERATED blogs. I don't see a pass of WP:GNG or WP:TVSERIES. I am OK with outright deletion or a redirect to GMA Network, but given the page's history, I believe an AfD consensus will be necessary to make the redirect stick. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC) With sufficient sources found and added, withdrawn and speedy keep.[reply]

The show ran in 2007. Any WP:GNG may have died of link rot by now. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but a look at the page history shows there was never any sigcov cited in this article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the oldest page versions, and on the first one I clicked, saw this used as a ref in a June 2007 version of the article. It's dead now, but the Philippine Entertainment Portal generally falls under WP:RS. Other people may find the article on some archive but I'm on a mobile and don't have a working computer to get this done. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's here: https://web.archive.org/web/20070614032744/https://www.pep.ph/news/13214/GMA-7-to-serialize-Mga-Mata-ni-Angelita-of-the-late-Julie-Vega. I wouldn't say it's particularly substantive; seems based on a press release. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that the article refers to a show as if it is not yet a done deal. The last paragraph roughly translates to "If the show is greenlit, it will replace Asian Treasures on its timeslot."
There are no press releases on things that are not set in stone, so this may be not particularly substantive 5-paragraph article based purely on speculation... We all knew the show came to be, so... Howard the Duck (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of press releases are issued in advance of TV shows being completed. But even if this is considered sigcov (I'm skeptical), we need to see more for GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Philippines; we don't do weekly press releases on new shows a month before it airs. This is actually more how it is done with some writers writing about speculation if ever the show will even make it to the airwaves before it supposedly premieres (lol).
There maybe other PEP pieces for this show, or from other sources altogether, but I can't be bothered to find those. I won't lose sleep this being deleted, but clearly, there had been borderline SIGCOV sources used in this article, even in its earliest days, and possibly others may be discovered if someone takes a look. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am convinced by Howard the Duck's arguments and find the coverage indicates some notability. The notable cast contributes to it; it had 70 episodes on a major network. (Aside note: It would be nice if users who tag films or television series articles for notability indicated the category of the page so that they could be improved with time by interested users and not only in a rush once they are taken to AfD and appear on their radar. Thank you) A redirect to the network or co-director is totally warranted, so that I am very opposed to the deletion of the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added more third party references as well into the article. Hotwiki (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hotwiki. With sufficient sigcov in a few of the independent sources added, I've withdrawn this nomination. Speedy keep Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2024 (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.
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy