Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World News Media

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scottrouse (talk | contribs) at 16:30, 24 August 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The company and its awards have sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_News_Media&oldid=797044686"