Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sugar Alliance of the 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 keep. In this close, I've additionally considered Iloilo Wanderer's comments as tending towards keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Alliance of the Philippines

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

Written like a advertisement, also possibly unnotable. PROD contested. —JJ Be rs 04:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What sounds like an advertisement? What specific wording do you disagree with? It is a stub and therefore still short.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable. One of the most important dailies -- if not THE most important -- in the country calls it "biggest group of sugar planters and millers nationwide", and this is in one of the leading sugar producers in the world. How can the leading industry group of a leading industry not be notable? Especially an industry that has had and continues to have such an impact over such a big country. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets
WP:GNG.--RioHondo (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per RioHondo. Nominator may have misunderstood the prose as advertising or possibly, loaded language, ~~but look up for covert advertising, that can be cleaned.~~ Just clean this up if the issue is with
puffery, though the claims are by media. Article is a stub, and expansion is a better solution than deletion. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2017 (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.