Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakbakan International

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 no consensus. The editor who raised the notability issue initially supports keeping, and no one else seems bothered enough to discuss in the past two weeks. RL0919 (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bakbakan International[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability questioned over two months ago by User:RightCowLeftCoast; no edits made since then to attempt to fix the issue Bsoyka^✉ 08:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, looking over sources there are three books (two published by Tuttle Publishing (1, 2) and one by Crowood), all the books give significant coverage to the organization. As for news sources, the subject only received passing mention in this CNN article, and this Philippine Daily Inquirer article. Based on the under 7k hits on Google when looking up the subject, and the little to no news of the subject (current or historic), I had placed the notability tag on the article. That said, based on the significant coverage contained in these three obscure books, I cannot currently support deletion, but must due to WP:SIGCOV support keeping this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 09:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.