Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebuilding for the Better 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   delete. L Faraone  13:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Rebuilding for the Better Philippines

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable blog/website. According to the article, there are approximately 657,000 more notable websites. Although the site statistics are quite detailed, there is nothing in the article that explains why this blog is notable (unique perspective, used as source by acadamia, referred to by other notable blogs, etc). I could find no sources referencing this blog, other than self-references and this Wikipedia article. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Would it be safe to speedy delete the article as A7? If not, it's still an unremarkable website. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree for speedy delete or to delete the Rebuilding for the Better Philippines. The subject indicates importance or significance which did not violate A7. It exist and to make it fair, itemized, enumerate, and cite all the violations and reasons why are we going to delete it. Please Check Articles  A7. Lets interpret every words and every violations carefully. In fact if we could add all the top 1 Million notable websites in the world to be listed here in Wikipedia then why not?. Instead of deleting one, Why should not list all top 1 Million notable websites in the world ? Try to consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, or handled in some other way instead of deleting it. Prince_denison tccsdsd
 * If it can't be deleted per A7, as there's little, if any, independent coverage for either the publication or the blog, it's still not notable, as such, my !vote stands. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Let’s make it clear to everyone base on rules, policy and articles as stipulated by the Articles of Wikipedia. “What are the bases of deleting articles? Is it by qualifying as violating the policy and standards or rules as a primary guideline in deleting articles or based on personal opinion, thought, feelings and emotion? I want to invoke the rule of Law, policy and guidelines to decide not by human feelings, emotions and personal opinion. Deleting is not a big issue for this. It could be deleted by any administrator who has the power to delete. The reason why it reached up to debate as there is a policy and procedure which is being followed how and when to delete. What matters most is.. Is there any rule of law in Wikipedia Prince_denison(talk) tccsdsd 07:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason I nominated this for deletion was because it meets criteria #7 and #8 of policy WP:DEL-REASON. Prince denison, you've spent a lot of time on this article, it is formatted very nicely.  If you can find some reliable sources regarding the subject and establish that it is Notable, I'd love to see this artice rescued (kept), and my nomination declined, but as it stands this does not seem to be an encyclopedic subject.   78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is absolutely no coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sourcing in the article is primarily primary sourcing.  My own searches turn up nothing usable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, subject does not appear to have received in-depth significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources; therefore the subject of this AfD does not appear to be notable as defined by WP:GNG or WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @ 78.26   Don't take it personally as the article is owned by wikipedia not mine. You want to know if I spent lot of time in this article its somewhat personal but I should say "no" its just about 15 minutes during my break time when I saw the site which is crowded with so many comments. Since you take me personally about this I would reply to you not to worry. You don't need to say that "you'd love to see this artice rescued (kept), and your nomination declined" because deleting this article is not a big deal but a consensus decision of so many admins. We have the rule of law here and Majority rules and I believe in it . At least also a busy person like me who do not have so much time for this great Wikipedia meets Great people like you, which for me is awesome. (This is called a close encounter between a sheep and a group of lions)  I hope also that in cases like these, a debate like this would always happened so the due process is well observed. Thumbs up to all of you guys. Job well done. I am eyeing a new website to be posted here soon its like Paypal, I am searching its full info.. I hope you will help me find the sources and help me build the article so it would not be deleted.  Prince_denison (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment on sourcing: here is an interesting problem. I found nothing on Google books, scholar, or news. Also, I found nothing on JSTOR. Yet, I found a few sources on Bing, see Heritage Foundation, an election website, etc.  I'm not sure if they prove notability, as the mentions are passing or coincidental. In any case, sourcing is going to be a real issue here. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Perhaps I missed it, but I cannot find any reference to "Rebuilding for the Better Philippines" in the heritage.org article. The subject matter may overlap with what the "Rebuilding for the Better Philippines" blog covers, but is not coverage about the site.  the second site simply has the "Rebuilding for the Better Philippines" added as a feed on the page and does not appear to be a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 20:25, 11 June 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.