- 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 No Consensus.(non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Kapampangan Development Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 12 the consensus was to relist this discussion as the closing rationale was considered to be too close to a supervote for comfort. As the DRV closer I am neutral. Spartaz Humbug! 17:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable as established by multiple articles in major English-language regional Phillipine newspaper. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my argument on the previous AfD. I do agree however, that the previous AfD should have been closed as "no consensus" instead of "Keep" since the arguments for both sides were well-rounded. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I closed as keep in the previous discussion and admitted the error. In any case the article should not be deleted. We have three reliable sources now. Manila Times, SunStar Pampanga and Philippine Daily Inquirer. Two of those sources were present last time. JodyB talk 19:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only inline WP:RS that is used in the article is the Inquirer, and it is used to cite that only "only 11 of the original founders remain". That an inconsequential citation; in either case, the references in the "Additional References" have to be cited inline to further ascertain the notability of this organization. –HTD 10:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are inline citations from Sunstar, the Manilla Times and the Philippine Daily Inquirer. These references are inline but some may be found in external links too. JodyB talk 12:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sun.Star Pampanga has a website. If someone can fetch me a link to those, we can see if the coverage isn't trivial. The PDI source isn't used properly. The Manila Times article while arguable not trivial, the foundation isn't the focus of the Times article. –HTD 12:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete the article is far too promotional to be encyclopaedic. And almost all third party sources are from sunstar newspaper. It would need wider coverage in other Filipino newspapers. LibStar (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still coverage from a reliable source, but it's true it could use some more sources. My !vote stands however, as the Sun Star news articles are still primarily about the foundation. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 01:12, 28 December 2013 (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.