Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philippines

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Philippines. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Gpedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Philippines|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Philippines.
Further information
For further information see Gpedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Philippines

Antiochian Orthodox Christian Mission in the Philippines

Antiochian Orthodox Christian Mission in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Notability and verifiability in question. As per WP:BEFORE I cannot find reliable sources outside the mission and Gpedia mirrors for the personalities listed in this article. Article has also been unreferenced since 2011. Lenticel (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

DWRP-TV

DWRP-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Television channel does not meet WP:GNG- lacks coverage in independent sources to distinguish it from a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL channel. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • It does seem to originate local programming, but when it comes to the Philippines, I have no idea where to find appropriate sources. If this article is to be kept, someone with more familiarity with Filipino TV will have to find me information on its history or more coverage, because right now, with no other context, I would !vote delete. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 23:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Radyo Pilipino, which is the owner of the station, and it is mentioned there. Not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

USS LSM-355

USS LSM-355 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Run-of-the-mill ship, just like lots of military equipment used consecutively by a few countries, but nothing remarkable. The awards are generic ones, given for "being there", and the sources are not sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. Some unaccepted military essay tries to claim that all commissioned ships are notable, but this is not an accepted (or acceptable) guideline. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • KEEP - the ship served with four navies. It would benefit from the addition of a "Description" section, but needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Sourcing is solid enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Serving with four navies is irrelevant, military material being sold from one country to another and so on is normal procedure and doesn't make that material more or less notable. The sourcing is fan sites and databases. Fram (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Landing Ship Medium. "Served with four navies" is neither a policy nor SNG. If this was so special, then why is not an overflowing amount of RS to demonstrate such? The sources here are blogs and Facebook (seriously?). The only RS cited is Warship International, which lists a mundane transfer of ownership of the ship alongside a dozen other similar handovers/sales. the closest I can find to good sourcing is this, but this does not constitute SIGCOV and ultimately the subject fails WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable enough for articles. See WP:MILUNIT #4, which, despite protests from one or two editors, is a long-accepted standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    • "We"? Our long accepted standards are WP:GNG, and to a lesser degree some accepted SNGs like WP:PROF, WP:CORP, ... Project essays are by definition not accepted standards but proposals, rejected guidelines, informal thoughts, ... Furthermore, your essay states "As for any subject on Gpedia, presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The consensus within the Military history WikiProject is that the following types of units and formations are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion" (emphasis mine). The likelihood has been challenged in these cases, just pointing back to the essay claiming that this makes them undeletable is circular reasoning of the worst kind. Fram (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comments - GNG is the standard; and there are going to be occasions when there just isn't the coverage. There is an alternative target of List of United States Navy Landing Ship Medium (LSMs) which seems to duplicate the lists in Landing_Ship_Medium. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Landing Ship Medium. At present, the subject of the article does not meet the GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources (many of which mirror Gpedia's content). WP:MILUNIT is only an essay and should not be given more weight than that. Pilaz (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Has anyone got a copy of LSM-LSMR Amphibious Forces, Vol. II. Paducah, Kentucky: Turner Publishing Company. 1997. ISBN 1-56311-389-9. - which is apparently where navsource gets its service detail from? Is the coverage there non trivial?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I've added a little bit that can be cited to various editions of Jane's Fighting Ships.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. Generally accepted that warships have their own articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep barely passes WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. The ship passes the GNG, and long standing consensus is that commissioned vessels are all notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep LSMs are warships, moreover even commissioned into warfare and by several countries, aren't that notable enough? Delta (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Has there been some canvassing to get the Milhist editors suddenly out in droves (on all these AfDs) after so many days? Anyway, a lot of people from a project parrotting that these meet GNG (without evidence) and that they have a local consensus to keep these, doesn't make these true or valid of course. Fram (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect - I haven't seen any indication that a standalone article is warranted here - the tidbits that are unique to this vessel could easily be incorporated into a class article (for example, see S138-class torpedo boat, where some of the ships have articles, but most do not). Some of these ships had notable service careers (USS Hunting is an obvious example), but the majority of them did not. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Please note that any details or even mention of ships with redirected articles is being systematically purged from the class articles - see [[1]] - so information that is unique to this vessel will be lost with redirect becoming deletion. Presumably this new policy, which I haven't seen any discussion of, will also apply to all other class or list articles?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete/Redirect - I'm not getting a SigCov vibe from the sources I can view and hence fails GNG. I'm seeing it getting appearances in lists of ships but not much else. (Doubtful that " Treasury Decisions Under the Customs, Internal Revenue, Industrial Alcohol, Narcotic and Other Laws, Volume 97" contains more than a brief mention.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Landing Ship Medium. I disagree with those saying this passes WP:GNG as they are not addressing the lack of coverage in the sources used in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
As per WP:NOTABILITY, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Oakshade (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
A misreading of GNG? Notability is determined by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention,". Many brief mentions do not add up to notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
A brief mention is not a trivial one, if it addresses the topic directly and in detail. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
No missreadinng at all. WP:NOTABILITY literally states Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.Oakshade (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
If the sources aren't in the article there' no evidence they exist... GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 01:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep - Besides passing GNG, there's no such thing as a "run of the mill" commissioned military war ship. One of the reasons of long standing consensus of retaining articles of commissioned military vessels is that it's literally impossible for there not to be extensive government reports on the proposal, planning, production, operation and long term analysis of such vessels.Oakshade (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
GNG requires independence from subject. Government and manufacturers documentation would not count under that.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Redirect to a class page. RS-coverage appears to be limited to Friedman, which seems to be sufficiently non-independent to prevent usage in notability arguments, and Jane's Fighting Ships which seems like it could fall into the directories and databases exception of WP:GNG (see footnote 5). Admittedly, I don't have access to Jane's so I can't check and hence "weak". That said, this is more borderline than some of the others in the class. If someone can produce even slightly better sourcing, I'd likely go with (weak) keep instead. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Friedman is independent of the subject and would be a great source for the appropriate class article, and for a physical description of the ship, but its coverage of the history of this ship is limited to construction dates - as I added and transfers between users. The coverage in Jane's is also brief - dimensions etc, dates of transfer and the conversion to hospital ship (as added) - there is also an intriguing hint in the 1974–75 Jane's that the ship is "assigned political warfare personnel in addition to the ship's normal complement". The frustrating thing is the ship appears to have been involved in major events - the evacuation of what became North Vietnam by the French in 1954–55 and the escape of the South Vietnamese navy in 1975, but the current sourcing merly implies this rather than giving the article something that can be referenced.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Has anyone checked Veith (as used in the LSM-110 article and claimed in the LSM-110 Afd)? ([[2]]) - I can't see the relevant bits of the book from Gooogle Books preview in the UK so cannot see whether there is useful discussion of LSM-355/Hát Giang/HQ-400Nigel Ish (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I did, Veith doesn't mention it. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
          • If sources are not mentioning this particular ship in detail then how can we have an article about it? I would much rather see in prose a summary of this particular class of landing ships here, rather than an article with little to no information available on a ship. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Deletion_sorting%2FPhilippines">here</a> and attribution parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Philippines&amp;action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="https://www.gpedia.com/terms-of-use.php">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>