Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parallel Media Group


 * 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.  Sandstein  14:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Parallel Media Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. My concern was: Fails WP:CORP. Existing cited secondary coverage is an extremely brief passing comment in the telegraph. All I can find myself are other brief mentions about it's share price e.g.  but those provide no information about the company.

Further sources were added but these still do not provide substantial in-depth coverage. SmartSE (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep (as a declaration, i contributed to this article) Not sure this is enough or not as a notable summary, or this news coverage by the independent regarding the business profile. Matthew_hk  t  c  20:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Content of previous business was added, a coverage of William Morris Fine Arts plc with 1098 words by The Financial Times in 1984 ("The recycling of Peterlee - Tim Dickson chronicles a wallpaper company's route to the USM"), was found in Factiva (i had an academic account linked to my study in university, which granted my access to paid content). Unfortunately free content in the web slander to recentism . Matthew_hk   t  c  16:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep the article from the Independent provided above is an acceptable reference. There are other references to the spat between the shareholders available also. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing ++ 18:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  03:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. It;'s notable overall. Sufficient size, sufficient sources.  What we need to be sure of is not to also make articles for each of its compenents. Much better to have one comprehensive article.


 * 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.