Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gawad sa Kaunlaran


 * 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 19:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Gawad sa Kaunlaran

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This award does exist, but existence does not equate to notability. The references provided appear to be only trivial mentions in handbooks of awards or mentions of someone receiving the award. There does not appear to be any non-trivial discussion of the award itself in reliable independent secondary sources. There are no subject-specific guidelines for retaining such an article, and it does not meet WP:GNG. KDS4444 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. EricSerge (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. EricSerge (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, though a weak one based on a lack of available sources which may roll into WP:BIAS due to limited English language sources. I am not much of a wikilawyer, but past practice and precedent has been that awards of a national government's honor system have been sufficiently notable to be stand alone articles. I know that is a weak rationale, but I find nothing in policy that prevents us from covering this subject with an article. There is a fair amount of connectedness with this article which in my mind would also warrant it's keeping. EricSerge (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will grant that the article seems to be connected to several others, and that there may be some bias with regard to English language sources, and that precedents may be that such national governmental awards such as this are frequently notable enough to warrant standalone articles. But what this article needs is non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources.  If this article gets deleted, I would have no objection to its eventual recreation with such sources included.  Right now, even the Tagolog Wikipedia has no article on it.  KDS4444 (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Tagalog Wikipedia doesn't have an article for its highest military award, and one that is likely inherently notable, the Philippine Medal of Valor (tl:Medalya ng Kagitingan). It would appear that military medals, as a subject, are not very well developed on that Wikipedia. EricSerge (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps that award is not yet viably notable. The fact that the military dispenses it does not make it notable, but discussion in the required sorts of sources would.  If these do not exist, then notability it does not have... Yes?  KDS4444 (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. An honour like this is obviously notable. We have articles on even minor service medals. Ridiculous nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Nothing is clear. Or obvious. Keep the ridicule to yourself. Give me multiple non-trivial instances of discussion in reliable independent sources instead.  Do you have any? Does anyone?  These assertions of notability are not usually enough to be considered notable (per wp:ITSNOTABLE).  Thanks, dude. KDS4444 (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly think a medal like this would be deleted if it was British or American? Do you honestly think deletion is doing a service to Wikipedia or its readers? As I said, ridiculous nomination. Common sense applies here. Oh, and by the way, calling me a pompous dick on my talkpage is immensely mature. Well done! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Referring to my nomination as ridiculous in the first place is immensely immature. Touché.  And what I "honestly think" has no bearing here.  Neither does what you "honestly think."  Last time I checked.  As for "common sense", see WP:COMMONSENSE, paragraph "There is no common sense." Oh, and by the way, I thanked you for not being a pompous dick...  Didn't you read the message??  (Oooo... I so dislike it when I leave users messages that they do not read!).  KDS4444 (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

❌ - KDS4444 (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2016 (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.