Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition Against the Marcos Dictatorship


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Coalition Against the Marcos Dictatorship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication or evidence of notability. Prodded back in January 2013; prod disputed, but article was never improved.  PK T (alk)  15:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  PK  T (alk)  15:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  PK  T (alk)  15:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Though the current version of the article is a sad stub, a Google News Archive search shows significant coverage in many independent, reliable sources for this group. When the New York Times ran an article about the response of anti-Marcos groups to the dictator's fall, this group was mentioned in the first sentence. This book describes the group'a history in Canada, including its name changes over the years. This book discusses the efforts by Marxist-Leninist groups in both the Philippines and the United States to influence the coalition. Newsweek magazine covered the group in 1982. Our coverage of organization opposing the Marcos dictatorship is weak and this article is weak. Deleting it isn't the solution; improving it is.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - If the subject was covered by such publications such as The New York Times and Newsweek then why not? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If the article had more meat on its bones, then perhaps it should be kept - but as of now it consists of 1 sentence and no referencing. There is no indication or evidence of any notability in this article.  Improve it if you can, please.   PK  T (alk)  13:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't understand why this was relisted when the nominator's rationale has been clearly refuted and there are no other delete opinions. Adding flesh to the bones won't be achieved by deletion, but only by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources noted by Cullen328 clearly show that coverage exists to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2013 (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.