Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News World Communications


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

News World Communications

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a holding company for Unification Church owned news media, including the famous Washington Times and other lesser known outlets. Unlike its owner, and some of its subsidiaries, News World Communications has not been the subject of in depth secondary coverage and so is not WP:Notable.Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even just the template above,, shows a great deal of coverage in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough coverage in secondary sources to be notable. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  20:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But is any coverage "in depth" rather than just repeating the information that it is the owner of the Washington Times etc. and is in turn owned by the Unification Church. If you can show me an article that gives us more information than this I will withdraw the nomination. I have no objection to an article if it gives some useful info. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are several. But aside from that, this is sort of akin to trying to get articles The Washington Post Company or The New York Times Company deleted, simply because their main focus of secondary source coverage about them, also happens to deal with their subsidiaries. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are much bigger companies. I don't think most businesses would have three articles. One on the company, one on the owners, one on its products. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly enough coverage to satisfy the GNG; coverage for notable holding company will almost always substantially overlap for its components. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cirt and Hulablaoo Wolfowitz. Notability may not be inherited downwards, but the parent company of the Washington Times and UPI should inherit notability upwards. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlike Jclemens, I'm not at all sure that notability should be inherited in any direction (down, upwards or sideways), but that's not germane in this case. Whether or not notability is transferable there's more than sufficient coverage for a short article here.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Probably good enough sources. But even if not then by WP:Ignore all rules. The topic of Unification Church news media is certainly notable. It seems a little more logical to group them under this title than under something like "Unification Church owned newspapers and magazines." (Note that some do not have articles and/or are in other languages than English.) Steve Dufour (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A cursory look shows enough places where a reader will find this name. Notable in usage. Notable by ownership. Meets notability for WP. Collect (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 *  BRUTAL 'delete' [merge (to List of Unification Church affiliated organizations, with trimming) would be acceptable] and rebuttal to above opinions:
 * Cirt: search results never ever demonstrate the existence of "significant coverage", they only demonstrate the existence of bare mention. To demonstrate significant coverage, you need to point to specific hits that contain such coverage.
 * NeilN: no "coverage in secondary sources" has been documented (beyond the CJR listing below). Your opinion is therefore a bare assertion.
 * Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: almost no third-party coverage whatsoever (at this time) is not "Clearly enough coverage to satisfy the GNG"
 * Jclemens: WP:NOTINHERITED applies in all directions. It is quite common for a notable company to have an obscure owner, particularly where that owner is not publicly traded (and so is under no obligation to make public announcements, nor has any need to talk their stock up, and thus no need for the limelight).
 * S Marshall: please specify what this "sufficient coverage" consists of.
 * Steve Dufour: if you want an article on 'Unification Church and the media' then find significant coverage in secondary sources and create one.
 * Collect: "usage"≠WP:GNG (requires "significant coverage"), "ownership"=WP:INHERITED, so no valid argument.
 * The above opinions do not raise a single source. In fact only a single, currently-operative, third-party source in the article even mentions NWC (and it's simply a CJR "who owns what" listing). If somebody can be bothered to actually find significant third party coverage (instead simply assuming that it exists), this opinion may change. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would further point out that Google get 5 times as many hits for 'Washington Times' and Moon/'Unification Church'/Moonies as it does for 'Washington Times' and 'News World Communications'. This would appear that the former is the more widely noted relationship (anecdotally, my reading of RSs tends to support this) & NWC simply the non-notable 'vehicle' for it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If it owns a major newspaper like the  Washington Times it is notable, just as long as it meets V.  The GNG accepts that it does not always apply, & all guidelines have exceptions--we don;t even need IAR. I see this as an overly expansive reading of NOT INHERITED.     DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: the the Ochs-Sulzberger family trust is notable then? It own the New York Times (which has a far higher profile than 'Washington's "Other Paper"'). And as it turns out, very little in the article "meets V". I would suggest that yours is a dead-on-the-nose WP:INHERITED argument. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The trust you mention owns the "voting shares" but does not own most of the NYT total shares. NWC has well over 100K hits as such on google, and, more to the point, is repeatedly referred to in news articles in major publications and political sites.  Och-Sulzberger Trust gets a grand total of 40k hits on google, and (which is more important) is rarely referred to in news articles.  It is therefore likely that NWC has a substantially higher notability than the trust has.  Lastly, the trust exists only as an entity to control the NYT -- while NWC engages in substantial outside activity other than its ownership of the WT.   Apples and oranges, I fear. Collect (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Referred to" is bare mention, not "significant coverage". WP:GOOGLEHITS aren't a good indication of notability (and in any case 100k is of a similar order of magnitude to 40k). "NWC engages in" insubstantial outside activity -- as indicated by the woeful sourcing of the non-WT parts of the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument for deletion, then, has nought to do with notability. Absent a sound reason for deletion, defualkt is Keep. Collect (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Collect, Hrafn's argument has everything to do with notability. He's arguing the very letter of the general notability guideline.  He wants significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, exactly as the guideline says.  The Washington Times coverage would be more than sufficient for any other article, but Hrafn seeks to exclude it on the basis that it isn't independent of the subject because News World Communications Inc. is the Washington Times' owner. I'm afraid, Hrafn, that this is one of those places where the letter of policy needs to give way to WP:COMMON and the consensus clearly demonstrated in the above discussion.  Our editorial judgment is that the Washington Times, as a source, is strong enough to overcome the natural concern editors feel about sources that aren't completely independent.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I also think that News World's own website is a perfectly fine source for information on the publications it owns. Just like Ford's site could be used as a source for what models of cars and trucks they make, although not for the quality of them, without having to find an article on each one in a car magazine. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's part of the problem with this article. All there is to say is who owns News World Corp and what does News World Corp own.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that a single, fairly short article (Chris Baker's 17 April 2004 piece -- I could find no other "Washington Times coverage") from NWC's own subsidiary, which has a less than stellar reputation for editorial independence, and which is devoted mostly to regurgitating the NWC's spokeswoman's announcements, is hardly the basis for establishing notability, or for an article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, and when I said "the non-WT parts of the article", I meant the parts of of the article that weren't discussing the WT, not the exclusion of "Washington Times coverage" of the NWC. The section of the article on the WT is the only section that is sourced. Unfortunately, even in that section, neither (non-broken-cited) source (Moon himself & the Chicago Daily Observer), actually mention NWC. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Extra info to consider News World publishes newspapers around the world in Korean, Japanese, Spanish, and Arabic. It is not likely that WP will have articles on these soon, but each one has a greater circulation than the Washington Times. If not for this article English WP would not have any mention of them. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In considering the above, you should note that none of the sections on NWC's non-WT activities actually have sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why most of them don't have articles. I think one sentence telling what newspapers and magazines NWC owns would be enough for the article. No need for a section on each one. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But that in turn means that they don't add anything to NWC's notability, and so there's nothing relevant in your "Extra info to consider". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in any policy which says non-notable publications can not be mentioned in an article on a notable owner. Collect (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: the article currently has only two currently-functional citations that even mention NWC:
 * It's own subsidiary UPI, which only says this about NWC: "[Hyun Jin] Moon is also chairman of News World Communications, Inc., which owns United Press International. … The idea is one he has inherited from his father, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who is the founder of the Unification Church and News World Communications, Inc."
 * This short "who owns what" list
 * I would further note that nobody has pointed to any specific source not currently in the article, as providing "significant coverage". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Possible merge I would not object if this article were (trimmed down and) merged to List of Unification Church affiliated organizations. (I still prefer Keep.) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Jclemens, Cirt, and Hullabaloo.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Importance of the subject is clear, even if not strict WP notability. The information is useful even if the article is not really first class by WP standards. A simple list of publications would do without a section of one sentence on each one. Notable ones would have their own articles of course.Borock (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2009 (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.