Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International Press and 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 19:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The International Press and Media Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NORG. ALL of the sources are from the company or its fully owned news outlets. Fails WP:NOTPROMOTION and was created by a user recently blocked as a sockpuppet Dom from Paris (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 12:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Just like the related IPMG News that was recently deleted and the Al-Sahawat Times article (which I've just PRODded), the only sources are affiliated, fails WP:ORGIND. Also, just like the other articles, this article was mainly editted by a banned sockpuppet. Topic appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, nothing independently verifiable.  HighKing++ 18:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep this is clear vandalism of a long standing and clearly notable article. HighKing seems to be a sockpuppet account related to newspaper The Sentinel Staffordshire and is clearly on a vandalism campaign and not impartial at all. The user should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.31.9 (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Except you've missed the point that I didn't nominate it for deletion. Also, you can remove a PROD notice for any reason, but saying its VANDALISM isn't one I've encountered before. No matter. I've raised an AfD instead.  HighKing++ 13:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * KEEP Article is well referenced and contains multiple third party sources including government sources. Not sure why anyone would nominate such an article to be honest. The reasons given are very bluntly put, not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.144.197 (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * KEEP Agreed with above. Seems like vandalism. Article is well referenced and contains multiple third party sources including government sources. Not sure why anyone would nominate such an article to be honest. The reasons given are very bluntly put, not true. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Almost bad enough for WP:G11.  I didn't check every reference listed, but the ones I spot-checked are total garbage; their own website, corporate directories, etc.  Not to mention written by a confirmed sock, and defended here by somebody with an limited contribution history, and whose editing patterns are not what you would expect from a brand-new user.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2018 (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.