Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When In Manila

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Keeping for now based on the improvement and good faith work here. SarahStierch (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When In Manila

When In Manila (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the sources presented here show that this website passes WP:WEB. First the ones in the current article:

  • Manila Bulletin - I couldn't access this, but from the title it doesn't seem likely to have extended coverage of When In Manila.
  • Interaksyon - this one seems ok on the surface, but seems suspiciously like PR. There's a lot of coverage of When In Manila's Twitter trending, and not much at all about any of the other winners. I'd guess that it was written by When In Manila and then just printed as is by the site. There is no author named, which doesn't help.

Next, the sources presented in the suggested update by Tony Ahn on the talk page:

  • Inquirer Libre - this one was written by Tony Ahn, so doesn't count as independent of the subject. (Tony is a PR agent for When In Manila.)
  • Influential Blogger - this is a blog, which we don't accept as a reliable source.
  • Facebook - this isn't a reliable source either.
  • Philstar - doesn't actually mention When In Manila - we need coverage about the subject in order for the source to count towards notability.

I notice that the website has won two awards, but I am not sure whether they count as "well-known and independent" for the purposes of WP:WEB. I'd like to hear others' opinions on this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably also mention that I didn't find any other likely-looking sources online. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to break my reply up into pieces so people can respond to each of the unrelated points easily. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a "PR agent" for When In Manila. I am a consultant that helps them with digital issues like whether to stay on the Wordpress platform or go off of it, how to implement Google authorship, etc. And I do that in a volunteer capacity. Volunteers helping their organizations get some press are not in a COI situation. I wrote that article and submitted it to Inquirer, but it was an Inquirer editor that independently made the decision to run it, and I didn't influence his decision in any way except to write an article that he thought was newsworthy. Separately from that, as per WP:SELFPUB sources writing about themselves are perfectly reliable when reporting information about themselves unlikely to be challenged. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding whether the awards are "well-known and independent," the Tatt Awards (since its inception in 2011) have been covered by the three largest newspapers in the country (by circulation) [1] [2] [3] [4], the largest online news organization in the country (by traffic) [5], and Yahoo News [6]. Is it independent? Its sponsored by Globe Telecom, one of the top 10 largest corporations in the country, invited notable judges from the community, and a percentage of the judging is by popular vote, so I'd say yes, its independent. The other award, Rotary, was covered by Manila Bulletin, Philippine Daily Inquirer [7], and the Philippine Entertainment Portal [8], among others (figured that was enough so didn't continue searching). I'd say The Rotary Club, as a well-recognized international organization, is independent too, as is the Manila chapter that has been holding the awards for more than a decade. I'm Tony Ahn (talk)
Regarding the Philstar piece, it reports a tourism award was given to Vince Golangco, who happens to be the When In Manila founder/publisher, for "online media". According to a detailed Google search, he hadn't done anything else with online media. That award was for his work with When In Manila. Rotary doesn't award organizations, only people, which is why all the other awardees were CEOs and business magnates. Wikipedia guidelines state that if a person is only notable for one topic, they don't warrant their own article, just a mention in the notable topic's article. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!

Yes, I wrote the When In Manila entry, the original one but to be fair, I would like to mention too that I am not connected to them anymore.

Nevertheless, I am willing to vouch for the authenticity of some infos in the original entry. The Manila Bulletin article has most likely been removed since Manila Bulletin usually removes news items more than a year old but I can find a cache for that. I will post it here when I find it. The article does mention Vince Golangco, founder of When In Manila, as the recipient and received it in behalf of the online community.

As for the rest of the infos in question, I would just leave it to those still connected with When In Manila to vouch for.

Thank you very much! User:RepublicaNegrense

  • When on AfD, (Weak) Delete as the Romans do - The only sources given (and also those I could find) are passing mentions or promotional articles. While they did win an award, the award itself is neither prestigious nor notable itself. If someone else finds a source I missed, feel free to ping me. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because an article is complimentary doesn't mean it is promotional. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend you reading WP:COI, as you appear to have a connection with the subject of this article. Thank you very much. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at that, shall we? Emphasis which follows is mine. "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers. When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest. This is often expressed as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. COI editing is strongly discouraged." I am not an editor of this article, having never edited it. I have not engaged in COI editing, having proposed changes on the talk page, as the WP:COI guideline recommends. What we're discussing here is whether or not a particular source is independent or not. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I'm familiar with the website and I have a lot of blogger friends who are acquainted with the website's founder who is also a DJ at a local radio station.) I currently think that When In Manila lacks enough reliable sources to establish notability. So the article will not pass WP:WEB in my opinion. That said, I think it's possible in the future that the website will gain enough sources to establish notability. --seav (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've updated the references to fix the broken one (notice that article says the award is "prestigious" which should further satisfy Wikipedia's guideline about a major award) and to improve the format. Have added no new material. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With such minimal coverage this does not pass notability standards, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've updated the article. Dropping the disputed sources, we've got
  • Jusay, Annalyn (June 7, 2010). "Wheninmanila.com (and Beyond!)". Manila Bulletin.
  • "Winners of Tatt Awards honored, one pulls Twitter stunt". interaksyon.com. Interaksyon. July 14, 2013. Retrieved August 11, 2013.
I think those two, combined with the reporting on the two major awards they earned, qualifies them for inclusion. The other disputed sources add detail, but these definitely confer notability. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the link to "Wheninmanila.com (and Beyond!)"? I can't find it on the Manila Bulletin's website.Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Manila Bulletin only keeps content live on their site for about a year. However it has been archived by Highbeam Research [9] and Questia [10] but is behind a pay fence in both places. The Questia free snippet is the longer of the two. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I can read, the interview appears to be more on the site's founder (which means notability for him could be established) rather than for the site itself, but it's promising enough for me to change my !vote to a weak delete. I still can't seem to find much significant and independent reliable coverage for the site, so if someone else does, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an inaccurate read. The headline mentions the website, and the article is an interview with the founder. This YouTube video [11] shows the article itself, and if you notice, the image in the article is of the When In Manila logo, not a picture of the founder. The first paragraph opens talking about the site, and closes with the site, introducing the founder (the interview subject) in between. The last paragraph (shown below) is entirely about the site. I think that satisfies the requirement that When In Manila be the subject of the article. Here are some snippets from later in the interview where you can't read through the payfence, although I can't post the whole article for copyright reasons:

Q. What has been your best blogging moment in Manila (and beyond) thus far?

A. Wow, way too many to mention. Overall, it's meeting so many amazing people whom I would have never met had I not started my blog http://www.wheninmanila.com

To be more specific, I enjoyed sponsored travel to Boracay and got to go cliff diving there with some celebrities! It was an epic moment in my life and an unforgettable trip as cliff diving was one adventure I've always wanted to try but was also one fear I never thought I would overcome! Again, this happened because of blogging.

Q. Please share with us your plans for your blog.

A. WhenInManila.com hopes to become a full-on online video channel. We're also hoping to produce short films and fun videos that everyone can enjoy. We want to be sort of an online entertainment hub where you can check out funny videos and articles. Eventually, we envision ourselves as an online production house that would also produce videos and content for people specifically to be placed and marketed on the internet.

So I think this article is clearly about the blog. The founder is not notable for anything outside When In Manila, so a When In Manila article that mentions him is a lot more appropriate than an article about him that mentions When In Manila. That, along with the Interaksyon article and the awards should alone be enough to justify inclusion. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 03:13, 1 December 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/When_In_Manila&oldid=1069058613"