Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World News Media

World News Media

World News Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 Wikipedia: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)