Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bantay Bata


 * 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. non admin closure Cenarium   (talk)  17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bantay Bata

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

While it is a great organization, I can't find anything that makes the organization all that... notable. This seems to be more or less advertising for the organization. In addition, significant portions (such as Services) have been copied without attribution or rephrasing from the main web-site, or are used as quotes. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  00:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.   — Lenticel  ( talk ) 01:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - insufficient evidence of notability in reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep this is the most silly deletion request I have ever seen. The work of Bantay Bata makes it an icon in the Philippines. It is comparable to the Fred Hollows or Smith family appeal organizations. If were going to delete this, then lets delete the Red Cross. Honestly, if this was in a western country this deletion request would not have even been posted. The article needs some work, and noticed that a number of editors already getting involved, good.Susanbryce (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep added sources to the article already. Question: Does a fund raising competition by the University Athletic Association of the Philippines and National Collegiate Athletic Association and a personal donation by the President of the Philippines add notability?-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: We have an article for that: see UAAP-NCAA All-Star Game. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very notable organization in my country. The article does need some rewriting (any article that has a Vision and Mission section definitely needs refactoring). --seav (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable enough to me. More importantly, the article is USEFUL. Its presence on Wikipedia does no harm. Cleo123 (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable organization, just doesn't have a lot of US pull. But organizations like Alpha Phi Omega which have a presence mainly in the US and the Philippines know a lot about it.  I say we keep and see where the article goes over the next few days. Jussen (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This appears to be a notable organisation.--Berig (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the improvements in sources and the evident notability. The article definitely could use a cleanup though. ~ mazca talk 18:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep though stub it, shorten a bit and less advertising! Sethie (talk) 16:40, 3 May 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.