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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PinoyExchange[edit]

PinoyExchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

advertising The Banner talk 16:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no RS DocumentError (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 18:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No different from any other forum on teh interwebz. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a notable website in the Philippines and the country's largest Web forum, in addition to being an all-around Web portal. If that's not an indicator of notability, then I don't know what is. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have independent, reliable sources for that? The Banner talk 00:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Here (this is arguably the weightiest I found so far), here, here (this shows that the website was used as the subject of another notable topic) and here. I'd add them in, but I'm working on the FAR for the Manila Metro Rail Transit System. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Mwah, one website offline quoting the boss, 3 passing mentions. Not really conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 00:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Relisting per sources introduced in the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No luck here, I might be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the AFS-CBN source if there were a second, solid source to meet the other half of GNG, but I don't. Tried Highbeam as well as the usual Google suspects. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:24, 15 September 2014 (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.