Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Critics Circle


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Young Critics Circle

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

PROD removed immediately after posting with no changes. Fails notability per WP:ORG. Essentially unsourced; the only sources (now dead links) are to the organization itself. Cresix (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Cresix (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per my nomination. Cresix (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. First...the dead link is not really a dead link, it only appeared dead because the editor who inserted the link made a mistake in the punctuation...fixing the incorrect placement of the comma made it work now.
 * Second...I removed the PROD because, according to the PROD template:
 * "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However, please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced."
 * On that note, I removed the PROD and included my objections on the edit summary, because the message itself said I can. For good measure, I left a message on Cresix's talk page, which didn't have had any reply. I was hoping that he would, at least, explain his reasons for adding the PROD; I didn't realize that at the same time, he was also creating this AfD.
 * Third...when I created the article, I made sure that it will have references. All the references I included are news articles from major television networks and broadsheets in the Philippines with a wide readership in the country. This year's awarding ceremonies even got coverage in the evening news which was broadcast nationwide:
 * from ABS-CBN
 * from GMA
 * It is only unfortunate that the Young Critics Circle doesn't have its own website and domain and, at present, only exists online through social media outlets. But I'm not convinced that on that alone, the article does not meet notability standards. It is now considered a major award-giving body for Philippine cinema along the lines of the FAMAS Awards, Star Awards and Gawad Urian...or else, it will not even merit the attention of the mainstream media in the Philippines. For this reason, I'm voting for a keep. --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see no sources to "news articles from major television networks and broadsheets". I only see sources to the organization itself (Young Critics Circle). There are no secondary sources. Cresix (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Under "References", I did (wikilinks to the sources' articles added):
 * Himpapawid Wins Big at Young Critics Circle - ABS-CBN (October 16, 2011). Retrieved June 28, 2012.
 * Young Critics Circle Bares 1st Quarter Citations - Philippine Daily Inquirer (May 7, 2002). Retrieved June 28, 2012
 * Young Critics Circle will hold awarding rites on March 11 - Pep.ph (February 28, 2009). Retrieved June 28, 2012
 * Tale of ex-Yakuza, Diana Zubiri lead Young Critics Circle awardees - Interaksyon.com/TV5 (June 19, 2012). Retrieved June 28, 2012
 * Young Critics Circle to hold awarding rites on June 27 - The Philippine Star (June 18, 2012). Retrieved June 28, 2012
 * --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Those are not sources cited in the text of the article. They are external links. Cresix (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I cited them in the very first edit, using reftags. --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment' - I stand corrected. Editing now. --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Though I would have appreciated it if, if the only issue was that the sources were not cited in the text of the article, then it was at least pointed it out first in the talk page or if you edited it yourself before subjecting the article to a PROD or AFD. --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Simply moving the external links to citations with complete disregard for making changes in the article only minimally at best improves the sourcing. Essentially you are sourcing one very basic sentence describing the organization with multiple citations. Making a statement "XYZ is an organization" and then adding four or five citations does nothing to expand the sourcing of the article as a whole. And please don't suggest that I should have fixed the article. That was your job that you should have done before removing the PROD. Cresix (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - not quite up there with various entertainment critics or groups, even if its roughly 20 years old. I'm not too keen on the potential EL violations too. Furthermore, something tells me that members of the organization made the article, so it may run afoul of COI as well. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually...I created the article. And, no, I'm not a member of the group. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article might meet strong discussion if it is pour of links and citations. And a low importance will profoundly explicate on the creation. However, by notable awardees, it runs acceptable through improving it.   Jonas'VM undefined ☼  15:18 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep notable organization in the context of Philippine culture, multiple reliable sources present in the article, more available for example here. In my opinion meets WP:GNG. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Article was nominated based on incorrect understanding of Wikipedia policies. Being unsourced or having a list of sources but no inline citations is not reason for deletion: see WP:NNC, WP:NRVE. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regardless of the current merits of the article you are wrong about "incorrect understanding of Wikipedia policies". Being unsourced and removing the PROD with no changes (which is exactly what happened) is sufficient justification for an AfD. Then if the Afd results in adequate changes in the article, fine. If not, the article can be deleted with sufficient support here. Cresix (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Uh, the purpose of an AFD is not to induce significant changes to an article. To quote WP:AFD: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD."  Now I haven't taken a look at the article here, but it appears that the problems being discussed in the article are rectifiable without resorting to nominating it for deletion.  (The same line of argumentation could also be used for WP:PROD: if it can be fixed through normal editing, editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD and edit the article instead, rather than nominating it for deletion, proposed, actual or otherwise.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Uh, you again are overlooking the fact that the editor who created the article removed the PROD with no changes in the article. So, uh, when an editor removes a PROD and refuses to address the reasons for the PROD, then ... uh ... yes, an AfD is perfectly acceptable. It doesn't mean that improvements after the AfD is started are to be ignored, but it is quite appropriate -- even helpful -- when PROD is removed with no improvement. I have no problem with you pointing out that the article is salvagable, but don't suggest erroneously that this AfD is based on "incorrect understanding of Wikipedia policies". If this article wasn't AfD'd when I did it, it almost certainly would have been later because the creator obviously had no intention of improving it until it was AfD'd. Cresix (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – This topic passes WP:GNG per:, , . Northamerica1000(talk) 23:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, but the organization is not that well known in the Philippines (unless you're into film circles), but easily passes WP:GNG; it seems that their influence is being overblown both in the article and in this discussion. For example, in the List of people who won the Philippine showbiz grand slam, the YCC has been added along with the "Big 4" award-giving podies and the PMPC, while leaving out other more well known bodies such as the Guillermo Mendoza Foundation amd whoever awards the Box Office King/Queens, etc. Probably the same people who added those created the YCC article. Not that it's wrong but those who added that to the grand slam article where looking for too much legitimacy when they can already pass WP:GNG. – H  T  D  01:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, it's true that the organization is not that famous here (honestly I've never heard of it). However, there is coverage of them giving awards from The Philippine Star and PEP.ph. While that on its own isn't enough to establish notability, the mere fact that several reputable sources report on their awards makes me believe that the organization is actually quite reputable, and thus, notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.