154:
article about how acronyms are used in the
Phillipine media might be worthwhile. I'm surprised, though, at how much original research fluff. My favorite unsourced statement, more so than "Acronyms are popular" is this one: "Pedantic discussions on the differences between abbreviations, acronyms,
195:
This is a very good encyclopedic article. Proof: a) it is well-sourced, meaning therefore, putting tons of links like BBC, AFP, etc. are not essential, due to "res ipsa loquitur" principle, b) not only students, teachers, but even scholars, professors, and
Philippine jurists can benefit from this
280:
I'm not sure that sources alone can save this artlice. The fact that acronyms are used in the
Philippines does not make "Acronyms in the Philippines" an encyclopedic article. The claims about acronyms--their popularity in the Philippines, the inclusiveness of the definition--will be OR no matter
221:
sources. It can't be described as "sourced", let alone "well sourced". I agree that the subject is encyclopedic, which is all the more reason that the article should be brought up to
Knowledge (XXG)'s standards. For the time being, the non-acronym "O.R." applies.
318:. Based on the one source provided it seems like the topic could have an article but there is nothing to base it on at present (and I have found no additional sources) ideally a list of this sort should complement an article but as it is the unsourced,
361:
What would determine whether a particular acronym belongs? There doesn't seem to be any reasonable criteria to decide what a "acronym in the
Philippines" is. Is it an acronym that is used in the Philippines? An acronym used
149:
Mixed feelings about this one. To some extent, it is encyclopedic and contains information that should be placed somewhere, like "Vote for D CHAMPP", a campaign slogan that has no equivalent in
American politics, and a
216:
Rather than trying to argue that sources "are not essential", the editors should simply find soume sources to cure the "original research" objections are easily cured by the addition of sources. This one doesn't have
261:
That's a good start. I urge people to follow Warden's example and put sources, and if there are some items that can't be sourced (like those "most
Filipinos agree" sentences) those can be removed through cleanup.
130:
Claims like "Acronyms are popular in the
Philippines" are original research. List itself is just a collection of acronyms and what they stand for, not much in the way of notability and no encyclopedic value.
196:
well-written article. I myself, would use this, in preparation of court pleadings, and c) the blue wikified links are in themselves source of tons of links. This is not an original research.--
155:
and initialisms is non-existent since for most
Filipinos, all are considered acronyms whether or not the acronym is spelled out or spoken like a word." Did someone do a survey or something?
343:. Maybe greatly trim down the actual list of acronyms in the second part of the article and just source (or remove if sources can't be found) the contentious statements in the prose part. --
123:
174:
90:
85:
94:
77:
17:
324:"Pedantic discussions on the differences between abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms is non-existent since for most Filipinos"
81:
399:
375:
352:
335:
298:
271:
256:
231:
205:
186:
164:
140:
59:
414:
36:
73:
65:
201:
289:. It is an accumulation of unrelated acronyms based only on the fact that they are used in the Philippines. WTF.
413:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
252:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
371:
294:
136:
395:
197:
390:. However, I think EVERY acronym should be properly cited. I am aware of "VOTE 4 D CHAMPP" though.
53:
331:
267:
248:
227:
160:
282:
367:
290:
132:
366:
in the
Philippines? Does it have to be an acronym for something notable? It's just too vague.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
319:
315:
391:
311:
286:
50:
348:
327:
263:
223:
156:
181:
111:
344:
281:
what. Even a "List of Acronyms in the Philippines" would violate
407:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
118:
107:
103:
99:
310:
Currently almost all the text is unsourced, based on
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
417:). No further edits should be made to this page.
175:list of Philippines-related deletion discussions
247:I have added a source - it wasn't difficult.
8:
173:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
387:Use of acronyms in the Philippines
24:
326:should really be removed anyway.
400:14:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
376:05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
353:04:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
336:00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
299:00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
272:22:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
257:20:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
232:19:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
206:08:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
187:05:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
165:23:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
141:22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
60:00:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
322:text with statements such as
314:and is not presented from a
74:Acronyms in the Philippines
66:Acronyms in the Philippines
434:
410:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
316:neutral point of view
44:The result was
308:Delete or listify
189:
178:
425:
412:
198:Florentino floro
184:
179:
169:
121:
115:
97:
56:
34:
433:
432:
428:
427:
426:
424:
423:
422:
421:
415:deletion review
408:
182:
117:
88:
72:
69:
54:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
431:
429:
420:
419:
403:
402:
381:
380:
379:
378:
356:
355:
338:
304:
303:
302:
301:
275:
274:
259:
249:Colonel Warden
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
190:
167:
128:
127:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
430:
418:
416:
411:
405:
404:
401:
397:
393:
389:
388:
383:
382:
377:
373:
369:
365:
360:
359:
358:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
339:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
306:
305:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
279:
278:
277:
276:
273:
269:
265:
260:
258:
254:
250:
246:
243:
233:
229:
225:
220:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
203:
199:
194:
191:
188:
185:
176:
172:
168:
166:
162:
158:
153:
148:
145:
144:
143:
142:
138:
134:
125:
120:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
57:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
409:
406:
386:
384:
363:
340:
323:
307:
244:
218:
192:
170:
151:
146:
129:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
392:Starczamora
385:Retitle to
328:Guest9999
312:synthesis
283:WP:NOTDIR
264:Mandsford
224:Mandsford
157:Mandsford
183:bluemask
124:View log
152:sourced
147:Comment
91:protect
86:history
368:maxsch
291:maxsch
287:WP:SYN
193:Retain
133:maxsch
119:delete
95:delete
122:) – (
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
396:talk
372:talk
364:only
349:talk
345:seav
341:Keep
332:talk
295:talk
285:and
268:talk
253:talk
245:Keep
228:talk
202:talk
171:Note
161:talk
137:talk
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
46:keep
320:POV
219:any
177:.
398:)
374:)
351:)
334:)
297:)
270:)
255:)
230:)
204:)
163:)
139:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
51:ff
48:.
394:(
370:(
347:(
330:(
293:(
266:(
251:(
226:(
200:(
180:—
159:(
135:(
126:)
116:(
114:)
76:(
55:m
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.