Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acronyms in the Philippines


 * 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   keep. ff m  00:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Acronyms in the Philippines

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Claims like "Acronyms are popular in the Philippines" are original research. List itself is just a collection of acronyms and what they stand for, not much in the way of notability and no encyclopedic value. maxsch (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Mixed feelings about this one. To some extent, it is encyclopedic and contains information that should be placed somewhere, like "Vote for D CHAMPP", a campaign slogan that has no equivalent in American politics, and a sourced article about how acronyms are used in the Phillipine media might be worthwhile.  I'm surprised, though, at how much original research fluff.  My favorite unsourced statement, more so than "Acronyms are popular" is this one: "Pedantic discussions on the differences between abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms is non-existent since for most Filipinos, all are considered acronyms whether or not the acronym is spelled out or spoken like a word."  Did someone do a survey or something?  Mandsford (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.   — bluemask  (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Retain This is a very good encyclopedic article. Proof: a) it is well-sourced, meaning therefore, putting tons of links like BBC, AFP, etc. are not essential, due to "res ipsa loquitur" principle, b) not only students, teachers, but even scholars, professors, and Philippine jurists can benefit from this well-written article. I myself, would use this, in preparation of court pleadings, and c) the blue wikified links are in themselves source of tons of links. This is not an original research.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than trying to argue that sources "are not essential", the editors should simply find soume sources to cure the "original research" objections are easily cured by the addition of sources. This one doesn't have any sources.  It can't be described as "sourced", let alone "well sourced".  I agree that the subject is encyclopedic, which is all the more reason that the article should be brought up to Wikipedia's standards.  For the time being, the non-acronym "O.R." applies.   Mandsford (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added a source - it wasn't difficult. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good start. I urge people to follow Warden's example and put sources, and if there are some items that can't be sourced (like those "most Filipinos agree" sentences) those can be removed through cleanup.  Mandsford (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that sources alone can save this artlice. The fact that acronyms are used in the Philippines does not make "Acronyms in the Philippines" an encyclopedic article. The claims about acronyms--their popularity in the Philippines, the inclusiveness of the definition--will be OR no matter what. Even a "List of Acronyms in the Philippines" would violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:SYN. It is an accumulation of unrelated acronyms based only on the fact that they are used in the Philippines. WTF. maxsch (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or listify Currently almost all the text is unsourced, based on synthesis and is not presented from a neutral point of view. Based on the one source provided it seems like the topic could have an article but there is nothing to base it on at present (and I have found no additional sources) ideally a list of this sort should complement an article but as it is the unsourced, POV text with statements such as "Pedantic discussions on the differences between abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms is non-existent since for most Filipinos" should really be removed anyway. Guest9999 (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Maybe greatly trim down the actual list of acronyms in the second part of the article and just source (or remove if sources can't be found) the contentious statements in the prose part. --seav (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What would determine whether a particular acronym belongs? There doesn't seem to be any reasonable criteria to decide what a "acronym in the Philippines" is. Is it an acronym that is used in the Philippines? An acronym used only in the Philippines? Does it have to be an acronym for something notable? It's just too vague. maxsch (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Retitle to Use of acronyms in the Philippines. However, I think EVERY acronym should be properly cited.  I am aware of "VOTE 4 D CHAMPP" though. Starczamora (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2008 (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.