Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Araw ng pighati

:{{la|Araw ng pighati}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Araw ng pighati}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Araw ng pighati}})

Fails WP:NF, WP:Verifiability. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 14:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. --  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 16:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 16:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note to nominator: Verification was quite easy, unless one chooses to dis-believe the http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/236013/ccp-alternative-film-video-tilt-winners Manilla Bulletin], [http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/lifestyle/8350-21st-ccp-alternative-film-competition-winner-named Manilla Times] or [http://mogwaifilm.multiply.com/journal/item/63/It_aint_over_till_its_over_The_Mogwai_Thesis_Rescreening Mogwai Cinematheque], or the images of filming at [http://smanros.multiply.com/photos/album/44/Araw_ng_Pighati_Location_Shoot Smabros.com]. However, determining meeting [[WP:NF is a different story. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

:The author's propensity for using Blogspot and Multiply as references is my reason for the verifiability tag. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 03:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

::Understood. We're not in disagreement then... while the film does exist, reliable sources toward notability have not (yet) been found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Just not seeing that this is a notable film. Edison (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• :Yup... I'm hoping that a Fillipino wikipedian comes up with something I cannot myself find. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
• ::I can't find anything at the Tagalog Wikipedia [http://tl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natatangi%3AMaghanap&search=Araw+ng+pighati&go=Punta], but I don't suppose that means much... -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete this thesis film has its own article? I doubt this thing is notable despite the mentions in those above. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• :Well... even a thesis film might win notable awards... but I'm not seeing it yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I can tell this film scored a shared third prize in the short feature film at an awards ceremony for alternative films, and this is the only thing that has garnered it any independent coverage (see the links provided by Michael Q. above). I can't find anything to satisfy the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for films. I trust Michael Q. to keep looking for sources, and I'll reconsider my !vote if any more are found, but at this point I doubt they'll appear. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• :I now agree with deletion. Currently available sourcing simply does not meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete I just removed the External links from the article, as they were all about the film Requiem for a Dream and not about Araw ng pighati. If the film ever becomes notable, we can bring the article back. Userfy to author if requested. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:53, 1 May 2010 (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.