Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samahan ng Bagong Kabataan


 * 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. Michig (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Samahan ng Bagong Kabataan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article relies entirely on one source - their own website, which no longer exists. A search turned up a FaceBook page, a YouTube video, and a couple of Wikipedia scrapes. Fails WP:NORG. Narky Blert (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. There is possibly more significant coverage in foreign language press but with literally no independent coverage the mere possibility of coverage is insufficient to keep.  Jbh  Talk  14:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC) (late signature)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. First off, some of the information is anachronistic, such as an email from the 1970s. Next, a simple Google news search reveals zero sources. Almost nothing is sourced, even to their own website. It's a just a youth association, one of many. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find proper sourcing to do better. An organization like this is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists or existed, if the only sourcing present in that article is its own self-published content about itself — it needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media, not just to have its own website, to earn inclusion here. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2018 (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.