Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World News 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 keep. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

World News Media

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Firstly, I should disclose my COI as an employee of the company in question. I am also a newcomer to Wikipedia and attribute any initial disruptive editing to this. I believe that I have put my case forward in a neutral and civil manner and in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines. To get a full picture, it is probably best to visit the talk page for World News Media Talk:World_News_Media Content on the page, even after subsequent edits appears biased and as such WP:NPOV is violated. WP:CORP is also violated as the company has no inherent or inherited notability Scottrouse (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for World News Media
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 23.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 14:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Without yet weighing in on the merits of this nomination, the article is now vastly different from the version that triggered the dispute on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The company and its awards have sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The majority of the sources given are press releases or self-published content and therefore notability has not been established. The editors have not taken into account NPOV. To quote the guidelines: "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another". While considerable efforts have been made over the past day or so, the article remains woefully unbalanced. You focus solely on one of our publications and our awards in order to prop up what appears to be a malevolent agenda while refusing to engage in any meaningful discussion or indeed explain your edits despite repeated calls to do so. I still welcome meaningful discussion from the editors Scottrouse (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep but trim I feel there are enough sources that provide significant coverages towards the company to keep the article, but we need to trim awards / claims that are soley based on primary sources, whether from this company or from the Botswana Corprate Watchdog group. It's going to be much smaller, but that's probably correct for a company like this and given the existing secondary sources. Ravensfire ( talk ) 01:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Ravensfire, Thank you for your input and guidance here. Taking into account that awards represent only part of what we do as a company how do you feel about WP:IMPARTIAL? Scottrouse (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It is helpful to have numerous sources in order to demonstrate that this company passes WP:CORPDEPTH, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." With regard to the COI editor who eventually admitted that they work for the company, and who has sought to remove what they have described as "incorrect" or "defamatory" content, they have made no effort to identify other reliable sources that might present their activities in a more favourable light. The article satisfies WP:NPOV, as it reflects what is available in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any grounds for deletion. WP:NPOV is only a reason for deletion if the article cannot be fixed, and the only person who has a problem with point of view is themself far from NPOV, being an employee of the organisation. There are other processes on Wikipedia for handling disputes over bias and article content, as has already been pointed out on the article comment page, but as far as I can tell they haven't been invoked. People trying to edit their employer's article should probably read Streisand Effect and browse through List of Wikipedia controversies. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not helpful to discussion to point out an 'eventual' admission as it suggests that I knowingly transgressed Wikipedia rules. I have tried to remain transparent throughout. I have chosen not to hide behind a username, and by this I don't mean to offend those on Wikipedia who choose to (far from it). As I have already stated, any errors in process are due to being a newcomer and have been apologised for. As a company we don't seek glowing references in the form of independent sources on the internet, we just try to do the best that we can for our clients, be it print, web, video or through other content promotion. We are however subject to occasional posts and articles online which do not paint us in a positive light. I don't believe this is grounds for the creation and maintenance of a page devoted to only one side of our business that is actively reported on. I would be willing to keep the article in place if, as User:Colapeninsula has helpfully suggested, problems with WP:NPOV can be fixed. With regard to other avenues of handling disputes, you must again forgive me, it has only been a couple of days since I discovered the page's existence and I am learning your guidelines as I go. I will explore these avenues - thank you User:Colapeninsula. Scottrouse (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Given the use of small local papers reporting on local companies, and some odd misrepresentations of sourcing (it's not THE guardian) I am leaning towards delete, but it may just need work. All looks a tad to puffery for me.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Which are the "local" papers? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well how about the Trinidad and Tobago guardian?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a national paper, established in 1917, the oldest in that country: Trinidad and Tobago Guardian. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also where is the in depth analysis of these awards (which seems to be the main focus of the article) why are there so few sources announcing the awards overall (rather then just triumphing one (almost always local to the newspapers) companies win)? this is what I mean by "local paper" newspapers published in one (often small) country that seem to just be acting as vanity pieces for the award winner, and no in depth coverage of the wards themselves. The point is there is no real coverage beyond mere local interest except for two sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We have articles for the majority of the sources. I don't think we can say that we won't use them just because they are not published in London or the U.S., and that doesn't make them "local". There are numerous other sources for the awards, just do a Google search, but obviously we want reliable third party sources and naturally the majority of the sources relating to the awards are from the giver or the recipient as people like to boast about their awards. Hence the focus on third party sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is about notability, we know it exists, but coverage has to be in depth, not trivial mentions about X company won this award". The point is that none of these "local sources" are any thing more then trivial mention, they do not establish notability (except maybe for the awardee). Hell it is a London based ward and yet we only have (in truth) one UK source for this notable event.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This Wikipedia article was not intended to appear as "puffery". This all started because of a long article in The Times a month ago about the Europe Business Assembly. This led to starting articles about other companies highlighted in a report from the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, as it didn't seem fair to focus on just one company. And as we already had an article on vanity award, the corresponding category was started. Edwardx (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What I mean is the the sources are largely puffery of local award winners, not in depth new stories. In essence this is an article about a minor vanity ward, as such it should not have it's own article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't make any moral judgement about the legitimacy of the awards or the business. People are clearly prepared to buy what they are selling. It's just a matter of whether sufficient sources exist to demonstrate notability. It seems, when combined, that they do even if we would like them to be more in depth and more numerous. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No but we do need Significant coverage of the subject, not just a trivial mentions. The fact is that what we have a trivial mentions of "X local company today won an award". Now if in depth coverage of this ward exists then lets see it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I cannot find sufficient reliable third party sources about the publisher in order to write a neutral article and the company's website provides little information beyond the address. What little coverage it has is in minor publications complaining about its awards.  I don't know if the criticism is accurate, but would like to see better coverage before including it.  Even then, it would come under "People notable for only one event."  TFD (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep there are enough combined reliable sources referenced within the article to verify its present content and immediate expansion is not needed, so WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2017 (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.