Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Princesses of Mediacorp


 * 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 merge to Mediacorp. I'm going to do a rare IAR and ask that if there is any relevant content, it be Merged as an ATD. If there is none, then this article should be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Seven Princesses of Mediacorp

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable grouping of actresses; only RS I could find grouping the actresses in this way is the referenced zaobao article. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 12:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/7 Princesses, an AfD for the same topic under a slightly different title. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 12:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom, I can't find any sources that uses this term. Didn't catch on as a media term. Oaktree b (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women,  and Singapore.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: The correct Chinese term is "新传媒七公主" and not just "七公主". A search on NewspaperSG, Singapore's newspaper archive indicate 34 hits with the full name. From the preview of the search results, "七公主" is a viable term for searching but would get multiple non-related results. Based on the "catchphrase" starting since 2006 to 2011, there are about 700 to 800 results which if you remove the possible unrelated results at say 50%, it is a substantial amount of coverage. Note that searching in English would probably yield very little results as article title is translated from Chinese. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated the article with sources in 2011 and 2017. Note that there are constant references of "七公主" when one of the seven actresses are mentioned but as a passing reference. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All of the sources are from Lianhe Zaobao and Lianhe Wanbao (Zaobao and Wanbao literally meaning morning and evening paper respectively). Per WP:MULTSOURCES I would argue they don’t constitute multiple independent sources that would establish notability. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 04:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Moreover, I would guess that most of these results are merely passing mentions (though it is hard to tell for sure, since the full articles are not available online). Darylgolden</b>(<b style="color:#F00">talk</b>) Ping when replying 04:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The news items should be available online via Newslink, accessible with a NLB account from home (https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/main/Browse?browseBy=type&filter=10&page=2). Even if they are not online, they can be accessed via microfilm at the National Library building (level 11?) at Bugis. But prior to access and assessment, how about WP:AGF and not guess the content? – robertsky (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What a novel interpretation of WP:MULTSOURCES, but no. WP:MULTSOURCES is not about news being published by different newspapers under the same publisher. Rather, it is addressing the republication of a news article by a news organisation across multiple newspapers owned by one or many publishers.
 * All I see is that you are trying to argue that both papers are not independent of each other and thus can be considered as one paper on basis of being named similarly. You have not presented any evidence of that yet.
 * For all intents and purposes, the two newspapers, Lianhe Zaobao and Lianhe Wanbao, were created under one company after a merger of two newspapers, Nanyang and Sin Chew, when their HQs in Malaysia decided call it quits in Singapore for various reasons, all these before SPH was formed. The two papers retained much of their respective newsroom staff and had separate operations. The name, Lianhe, is a shortened name for their combined names, but like all name changes, the long name had lost relevance over time even though underneath it all, the morning paper could be Nanyang papers, and evening Sin Chew (or vice versa). Although the two companies will merge into a corporate sense, their editorial, publication, and related activities will be conducted seperately under their respective editorial and production teaams (Details of Nanyang, Sin Chew merger (Business Times, 21 April 1982)).
 * In a fashion, Lianhe Zaobao and Lianhe Wanbao were both independent papers sharing the same financial operations, that's before being merged into a single paper after the SPH CLG was established in 2021. Unless there are indications/evidence that the newsroom operations were being combined over time under the old SPH, and any cross publications of news items were as a result of being a combined newsroom, rather than syndication, we should consider them as separate independent sources.
 * The question on the independence of the two papers should be examined and argued in depth at WP:RSN rather than at here, as it will and can have a project-wide repurcussion on existing and new articles that rely only/largely on this two newspapers as sources. Additionally, your intepretation of WP:MULTSOURCES if is to stand, will see that news published in NBC News, MSNBC, CNBC, and UK's Sky News as one source (Comcast), The Times, Dow Jones, The Wall Street Journal, The Sun, Herald Sun as one source (News Corp.), etc. – robertsky (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with Mediacorp: No long term significance. As it currently stands, this alongside 8 Dukes of Caldecott Hill were akin to marketing efforts in the early 2000s. Mentions of these terms have largely fizzled out with occasionally mentions of what these (ex-)artistes are up to. Unless there is a substantial increase in content along the lines of Five Tiger Generals of TVB, this can be merged into Mediacorp and/or create another article with its celebrity management agency as the topic (provided there're enough sources to write one. i.e. like ABS-CBN's Star Magic). – robertsky (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No redirect either. This is pure WP:PROMO content and a plain WP:ADVERT, something that has been unusually endemic with the Mediacorp and TVB channels. If this was Nine Network, the BBC, or CBS doing this we would've WP:TNT'ed this under the same rationale a decade ago. And feel free to bring up more Tiger Beat-like sludge like Five Tiger Generals of TVB.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Is just pure advertising and lacks notability. <b style="text-shadow: 0px 0px 10px #8e24aa; color: #8e24aa;">Carolina2k22</b> • (talk)  •  (edits)  06:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.