Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/247 Asian Media


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

247 Asian Media

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As the author has restored the page after a speedy delete, I decided to nom for deletion instead. This website is apparently non-notable. It has no reliable sources. The author claims that this article is " within the "Big 3" for KPOP News" and that the other two have wiki articles. This is an invalid argument, as both of those sites have reliable sources, and both have an alexa rank of less than 10,000. Those articles are also significantly shorter than this one. The author has an admitted WP:COI, and this article was commissioned, presumably by the company. This is another indicator of non-notability. Benboy00 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment The website is apparently down at the moment, so I cant give any opinion on the actual content of it (another indicator that it shouldn't be thought of as notable). Benboy00 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice, didn't even bother to ask WHY the site was down today. It was because of the HostGator problem that affected millions of sites today. Thanks for making the site look irrelevant. Also, the article was not commissioned. It was written because the Asian Entertainment agencies want our presence on Wikipedia. I don't understand how there can be a strong presence on LinkedIn for the company but not on Wikipedia, where there's an entry for "What Does The Fox Say?" Seriously?! There is no promotion, not sales, not even strong talk. The fact that the ranking was included and it's not the highest Alexa should be proof of that. How about searching entries in Wikipedia and seeing how many times 247 Asian Media is used as a source. Or, I don't know, giving pointers on how to make it "fit for you" since apparently random internet funny stuff for a week can have an entry but not an actual media presence. What happens if that site breaks some big news? Will they reserve the right to NOT be included on Wikipedia? This is really starting to seem like you only want things you personally have heard of. Go visit the site now, it's up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsianGuruGirl (talk • contribs) 10:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment Hi, please be aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. First of all, you said "You deleted the company page I was hired to work on". This clearly indicates that the article was commissioned. This is why I am claiming WP:COI. Next, "What does the fox say" is extremely popular, with many times the number of hits of 247 asian media. The main problem with the article is not advertising. The main problem with the article is notability. This subject is apparently non-notable ( WP:WEBCRIT). You have not shown any evidence to the contrary. The very low alexa rank is further evidence against notability. The fact that there are no WP:RELIABLE sources is even more evidence. If the site "breaks some big news", then presumably it will be covered by a reliable source, and at that point it may become notable enough for inclusion. Until that time, however, it is not notable. Please stop using inappropriate comparisons. One way to tell if a comparison is inappropriate is by comparing the popularity of the thing you are comparing. If it has an alexa rank that is several factors of ten lower than 247 asian media's, for example, or has over 200 million hits on youtube, it is an inappropriate comparison (although this is just a small list of things that make these comparisons inappropriate). The downtime is in a way an indicator of notability, as you would expect a highly notable website to have better hosting, although i understand that this may have been a one-time incident. Now that I have had a chance to look at the website, one thing in particular caught my attention: The "about" page looks like its been made up to look corporat-ey, using terms like "parent umbrella company". This is merely a point of interest, rather than a serious flaw. The staff page is "coming soon", hardly the image of an established notable organization. Also, it looks like "247 asian media" is only mentioned in three other articles. There are many more ways that this website fails notability, and if I have to I shall list them, but I think at the moment there is probably enough to be getting on with. Benboy00 (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Clearcut delete ; author's participation in AFD reads like an attempt to generate traffic. Alexa says there may even be a single-digit of daily visitors. Somebody spam tag the user names-06:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SetagayaJ (talk • contribs)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as WP:CSD and salt. Article was previously speedily deleted as G11, then recreated in spite of notices (including COI) on the user's talk page. Comments above such as "the Asian Entertainment agencies want our presence on Wikipedia" indicates that the author has failed to understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a publicity medium. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see in the article's sources where the site is briefly mentioned in relation to a news event as a "so and so reported this" type of thing, but this is not considered to be coverage that would show notability. At most that might show that the site could be used potentially as a reliable source. The status of whether or not a site could be used as a RS has no true impact on notability. There are reliable sources that don't pass GNG while there are non-reliable sources that do. It's all down to coverage of the site, which 247 Asian Media lacks. Breaking big news could help gain the site coverage, but it's never a guarantee. Even popularity is not a guarantee of notability for the reasons stated above for reliable vs unreliable. This site just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for reasons stated by others.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   12:36, 10 December 2013 (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.