Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philippines

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Philippines. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Philippines|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Philippines. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Philippines

[edit]

Sophia Laforteza

[edit]
Sophia Laforteza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed WP:GNG, WP:SINGER, and WP:BANDMEMBER. There is no significant independent coverage establishing individual notability where most available sources are derivative of group notability, focus on her only in the context of Katseye, and provide only routine and/or trivial information. She hasn't released solo recordings or had solo chart success and there are no critical reviews of her vocal or songwriting outside of the group. This is effectively the same situation as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Skiendiel and should therefore be draftified. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajah Soliman Science and Technology High School

[edit]
Rajah Soliman Science and Technology High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

i believe this article is not notable. the most notable about this article is it is the "other" science high school beside Manila Science High School(it is first of country, that article is ok, but not this one). ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Zeibgeist (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Zeibgeist (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point, but notability on Wikipedia is not determined by comparison to another topic (for example, Manila Science High School). Each subject is evaluated on its own independent merits per the WP:GNG.
    Rajah Soliman Science and Technology High School is a government-established national science high school, formally recognized under Republic Act No. 8843. That demonstrates clear encyclopedic and institutional significance, even if the article currently lacks extensive independent coverage.
    The problem here is under-sourcing, not non-notability. The topic is real, verifiable, and educational in nature — it simply needs more references. Per WP:DRAFTIFY and WP:ATD, moving this to '''Draft space''' for improvement would be a more constructive outcome than deletion. Additional reliable sources (e.g., from DepEd or local news) can likely be added with further research. Acrom12 (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Keep. The subject is a legitimate and verifiable public science high school in Manila, established and recognized by Republic Act No. 8843, which is a national law. As a government-founded science high school, the topic is inherently encyclopedic and comparable to other public secondary institutions with similar designations. While the article currently lacks sufficient independent secondary coverage to clearly satisfy WP:GNG, the presence of official legislation and verifiable existence under the Department of Education make this a real, notable topic in scope for Wikipedia. The issue is under-sourcing, not non-notability. Per WP:DRAFTIFY and alternatives to deletion, moving this to Draft space for improvement would be more constructive than deletion. Reliable local or educational sources could likely be added with further research. Deletion would erase potentially valid encyclopedic content on an existing institution.Acrom12 (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to San Nicolas, Manila. It fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Being established via legislation, which is virtually true for all public schools in the Philippines, arent a reason to keep an article. A private school of the same scale and sourcing would be easily deleted.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pangako Mo

[edit]
Pangako Mo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:PROD. Fails WP:NSONG; very obvious WP:COI and almost all sources are just press releases and are not WP:SIGCOV. UnregisteredBiohazard talk to me 23:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of A Soldier's Heart episodes

[edit]
List of A Soldier's Heart episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, a list of episodes of A Soldier's Heart, suffers the same tumor as those nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magkaagaw episodes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Victor Magtanggol episodes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dangwa episodes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The World Between Us episodes, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Viral Scandal episodes (2nd nomination).

Much of the sources are obviously biased and non independent (websites of ABS-CBN Corporation), thereby compromising the neutrality of this article. One more source is a discouraged source (WP:LIONHEARTV), considered as unreliable since 2025. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't understand why you want it to be deleted though? The Kantar media ratings are from ABS-CBN because they are partners. If you deem them to be unreliable, propose the ratings system as a whole be removed. Why remove the list of episodes? The show is clearly well known in the Phillipines. Aesurias (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if your concern is that there is no need for a list in itself, then that should be the argument. The sourcing w/ media ratings is really a non-issue for me because its not the focus of the article Aesurias (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aesurias that's why I gave the links to the related AfDs that I created. This list article reeks of WP:CFORK problem, combined with sourcing from ABS-CBN and LionhearTV (one is non independent, the other is being discouraged). The parent article has a page size of only 19,928 bytes, which is still small. Excluding the AfD notice tag, this list article has a page size of 34,089 bytes. Assuming the merge is made, it's still below the accepted limit (for most articles) of 100K bytes, so why need for a separate list article? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I added that second comment after looking at the other ones. Aesurias (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see above convo Aesurias (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Viral Scandal episodes

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Viral Scandal episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Viral Scandal only has 127 episodes (in both seasons), and this list article (having 29,599 bytes in size as of this writing) is better off merged to the parent article, which only has a meager 9,824-byte page size. This reeks of an infraction to WP:CFORK rule. Article suffers a same malign tumor as those nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The World Between Us episodes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dangwa episodes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Victor Magtanggol episodes, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magkaagaw episodes.

It should also be noted that this list article only contains two sources, which are ABS-CBN websites (so non independent). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it does seem that an earlier version (later redirected) was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Viral Scandal episodes. The PH entertainment-related articles must be subjected to more stringent reviews from now on, considering the expected "presence of malign tumors" in some of these articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of The World Between Us episodes

[edit]
List of The World Between Us episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A mere-75-episode television soap opera does not warrant a standalone "list of episodes" article. If better sources exist, the table can be merged to The World Between Us (Philippine TV series) article. However, considering that a huge chunk of sources are non-independent (the ultimate source is GMA Drama) and from Facebook (WP:RSPFACEBOOK), this list article has the same "stage 4 cancer" tumor as those of the articles nominated at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Victor Magtanggol episodes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magkaagaw episodes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow The Trend Movement

[edit]
Follow The Trend Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per Notability Guideline, seems notable only in libel cases. I don't know if this is applied in 1 Event. Not passed in WP:NCORP. I also hope that can be Salt the following page: Follow The Trend Movement, Filipino Tweets That Matter and FTTM (Follow The Trend Movement). ROY is WAR Talk! 05:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion to "wait for more sources" is fundamentally flawed. Wikipedia is not a place to preemptively host articles in the hope that notability might be established later. The basic principle of article creation is that the subject must already be supported by significant coverage in reliable sources. Articles should not be speculative or based on potential future coverage.
Retaining this article would set a precedent for allowing articles on any meme page involved in legal disputes, which is not aligned with Wikipedia's standards. The libel case alone does not establish enduring notability.
It is also important to note the existence of an apparent Conflict of Interest (COI) as the article appears to have been created by individuals affiliated with the page itself, as would be pointed out by Nintendoswitchfan on his comment. The page used a screenshot of the article to promote itself on Facebook through a meme, which further suggests self-promotion WP:PROMO.[1] Louiejrsalvador (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "FTTM Facebook post promoting Wikipedia article". Facebook. Retrieved 10 October 2025.
  • Delete. I agree with all of the points raised by @Louiejrsalvador. I'd also like to add that the International State College of the Philippines article is a similar case to FTTM as a Facebook meme page with huge following, but compared to FTTM, ISCP has much more notable coverage in secondary sources (as a result of the controversies they have gotten themselves involved in). Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 06:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ISCP is more notable and coverage rather than to FTTM. ROY is WAR Talk! 08:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are a WP:THREE: [1], [2], [3]. WP:1E doesn't apply to organizations, especially as it makes more sense to cover that lawsuit in this article rather than in an article like "Follow The Trend Movement libel lawsuit". When I reviewed the sourcing was enough to convince me to stubify rather than delete, I still lean keep here but I think it's probably borderline notability and wanted to submit these sources for discussion first. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. FTTM is clearly just covered in the media due to their controversies and nothing else. If it were notable, it would have some coverage on how it started and how it grew. Also, the original creator of the page appears to be their Media Relations Director as the Wikipedia username matched the name in the article linked here: https://www.rappler.com/philippines/metro-manila/fttm-facebook-meme-page-faces-cyber-libel-complaint-caloocan-city/ Note that the edits of said page creator/editor recently has been to highlight FTTM as part of a lawsuit of a politician in said politician's page. I think the creator confused lawsuits as notability.Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nintendoswitchfan Do we need to report on WP:ANI? They also posted on their Facebook page, and I think they did it intentionally. per WP:NOTHERE and WP:PROMO. ROY is WAR Talk! 13:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd go ahead and do it. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let us report it. This is actually an aberration of Wikipedia's guidelines. Louiejrsalvador (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, and likely WP:PROMO Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 15:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified by 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸. The article needs major work though: it's very thin and event-driven. It centers almost entirely on a 2025 libel dispute and offers little encyclopedic context (history, founders/ownership, audience size, influence, or independent reception), so it currently struggles to meet WP:GNG as reflected by the notability tag. The COI tag is also cause for concern, but if that is resolved, I think the new sources are enough to keep and expand it.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - Wait until more significant sources about the subject are found. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP is the notability standard for organisations. I'm not seeing any reporting that provides in-depth coverage of FTTM, just FTTMs part in the lawsuit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also a possible WP:PROMO violation and apparent Conflict of Interest (COI). They took a screenshot of their "article" and posted the same on their page, gaining traction. Louiejrsalvador (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That version of the article is no longer up. Right now, the article is just a stub, with the promotional material removed. At this point, lack of notability is the only reason the article could be deleted, and I believe this page does mean the bare minimum requirements for notability. Behavioral problems don't count for much at AfD, they should be brought up at WP:ANI, which seems to have been done. Lovelyfurball (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and prevent re-creation of said page and possibly other similarly named articles unless issues with that article (conflict of interest, it being used as blatant promotional material) are resolved. -Ian Lopez @ 17:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The promotional material has already been removed when the article was stubified. The way they posted screenshots of the page for self promotion is definitely very bad, but not a reason to delete the page. Lovelyfurball (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸's sources. The page barely meets the minimum requirements, and the stubification got rid of the promotional content that was in the page. As previously stated by others, WP:1E only applies to individuals, not organizations. I'm hesitant to make this vote, but I do think it narrowly passes WP:NORG, since there are multiple sources that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Lovelyfurball (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm a tad hesitant to make this vote, as this AFD started off borderline snow-closable, but I do think it barely inches over the line for WP:NORG. The sources I cited above are WP:GNG-level, and there are other sources covering the lawsuit and other minor incidents that you can use to build towards WP:BASIC (i.e., [4], [5], [6]). There's a strong tendency I've noticed in articles relating to internet topics like this number for a large number of knee-jerk "well there's no way that's notable" votes, based on the intuitive definition of notability as opposed to the Wikipedia definition. The repeated AFDs at Junlper are another example of this. When I first viewed the page, my instinct was also that there was no way it was notable. For better or worse though, it doesn't matter whether the sourcing is coming from covering a libel lawsuit or otherwise, it does seem that this meets the notability criteria. Not by much, but it does get over the line. Regarding the WP:PROMO concerns, the article when it was created was certainly more promotional (you can see the state it was in immediately before the revdel), but in its current stubbed state I don't think it could reasonably be called promotional. The article being used as promotion off-wiki is gross, but has nothing to do with our deletion criteria. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it does not meet WP:ORGCRIT, the criteria is very stringent. Regardless, the sources are mostly covering the lawsuit not the meme page itself.Zalaraz (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The article lacks several important sections and background information about the Facebook page. Yesterday, I saw a post from the (FTTM) page with the caption: "sino gumawa ng wikipedia description namin, paki-correct na lang po yung ‘it’ 😔" (“Who made our Wikipedia description? Please correct the word ‘it,’ 😔”). The article appears to contain or considered promotional material, and I don't think the creator that this article can no longer be improved but it still fails. The references used do not meet under WP:N especially reliability and most of them are about a libel case, and only one source (1) is somewhat reliable, but its content focuses on personal aim issues rather than notability. Another source (2) is also unreliable WP:PUS not familiar material and not notable. Overall: FAILS. AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 01:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, and I don't think a basic description of what the page is and the lawsuit is about can reasonably considered promotional. I'm not sure what you mean by I don't think the creator that this article can no longer be improved but it still fails, but we cannot control what the page posts about this article and it doesn't have any bearing on whether its considered WP:PROMO or not. See this comment for the sources that are being used to argue for meeting WP:NORG. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    its considered not notable for WP:NORG without improvement and note the other sources that attached is no significant coverage except this one from BusinessWorld (1). But most parts of the page seem to be poorly written. Still FAILS. AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 01:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. The part of your argument about SIGCOV is the only part which matters. I don't entirely disagree that the sourcing is not as deep as it would be ideally, but I think across sources you can build towards WP:BASIC. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, not passed on WP:NORG per findings. There's no coverage and they are just notable in cyberlibel. TNT isn't helping either. Plus, we all know the consensus now. Although, Rappler is high reputation on Wikipedia per WP:RAPPLER, the other sources just barely mentioned background of FTTM, much worse that FTTM obviously posted on their Facebook page to promote it, like Wikipedia is not a playground, they can just post it on fandom. ROY is WAR Talk! 00:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is definitely not eligible for WP:SNOW, which is a clause for discussions which are basically unanimous. Multiple people have raised policy-based objections to the deletion. Also, there is not a consensus just because more people have voted to delete. While FTTM using this page for promotion is abhorrent, it doesn't impact their notability. The article, as it stands, is not promotional. WP:TNT would not be applicable, since the article is currently an acceptable stub. Lack of content isn't a reason for deletion, as long as the page has enough content for a reader to get a brief overview of the topic. Neither is a non-promotional article being used for promotion outside of Wikipedia. There are also a few articles which have covered the page for reasons outside of the lawsuit (1 2) and some which aren't very in depth but still cover it for reasons besides the lawsuit (3 4). Sources which cover it due to the lawsuit can still be counted towards notability, as WP:1E doesn't apply to organizations. In the end, the article just barely meets WP:NORG. Lovelyfurball (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not still convinced that passed on WP:NORG per findings. They are notable on cyberlibel and I don't think there's any notable other than their issues. I am not saying that I don't like the article but as I am seeing this, I think they need more establish notability or could potentially re-create in the future. And again, it's promotional plus you are incorrect that "there is not a consensus just because more people have voted to delete." they are deleting with my arguments and other findings. The sources you provided is just only on cyberlibel and there's no other coverage or could potentially strengthen the notability. ROY is WAR Talk! 02:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the 4 sources I replied with involve the libel case, they cover the page for different reasons. Could you please point out what about the content of the article itself (not the way the article was used off-wiki) is promotional? Lovelyfurball (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Refer to my assessment below. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is my assessment on the sources that keep vote provided.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes Yes Indeed, a reliable Yes Yes, well coverage FTTM political role ✔ Yes
Rappler (June 2025):Caloocan complaints via FTTM
 Yes News report synthesizes resident use of FTTM, not primary data Yes per WP:RAPPLER No Brief event explanation, no in-depth FTTM analysis ✘ No
Rappler (August 2025): FTTM Cyberlibel
 Yes covered the libel case Yes per WP:RAPPLER No Libel focused recap, minimal FTTM background, definitely fails SIGCOV ✘ No
ABS-CBN (August 2025): Meme page FTTM fights libel case, says its 'GTA VI' post is protected speech
 Yes Reports with context, not primary legal findings Yes Major Philippine News No Libel case summary, no broader FTTM discussion ✘ No
Explained.ph (August 2025):LGU worker files libel complaint
 Yes Straight news with case details Yes Generally reliable for local reporting No Brief libel complaint recap; no depth on FTTM itself ✘ No
Abogado PH (August 2025):Lawyer backs FTTM on satire
 Yes Commentary on satire or legal issues. ~ I am not using this, but it is a legal blog or more opinion. Questionable per WP:PUS, I think need to discuss this reliability No Advocacy piece on libel; minimal FTTM focus ✘ No
Interaksyon (July 2025):FTTM in restroom renovation project
 Yes News mention Yes The Philippine Star affilated. No Tangential FTTM reference, no in-depth discussion ✘ No
Interaksyon (October 2024):FTTM praised for Bicolano donations
 Yes News spotlight on FTTM's philanthropy. Yes The Philippine Star affilated. ~ Praises donations but brief, limited FTTM background ~ Partial
Rappler (July 2017):FTTM in 10 funny FB pages
 No Listicle, no analysis/synthesis per WP:SECONDARY Yes per WP:RAPPLER No One line mention, no depth. ✘ No
FTTM : Official Statement of FTTM in Instagram
 No primary source official statement. No per WP:RSPIG and WP:SPS. No it is from Instagram, so no coverage on this. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

ROY is WAR Talk! 03:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because no closer has decided to tackle this AFD yet after hours of eligibility. While those editors arguing for "Deletion" have numbers on their side, many of their positions seem to rest on a rejection of the article subject and not based in an assessment of sources and whether or not they establish notability. Your personal opinion on the article subject and various aspects of it is irrelevant to whether or not it is notable but Wikipedia's standards. Please put aside your own opinions and feelings on the subject and adopt a NPOV on assessing whether or not the subject can be considered notable as we just notability here on the project.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles proposed for deletion (WP:PROD)

[edit]