Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Media Group Holdings Limited

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. So Why 11:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Media Group Holdings Limited

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

Promotional article sourced entirely to the company's own site and press releases. No decent coverage found beyond the usual business listing sites. Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor Entertainment Group. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising, with a doze of WP:TNT due to strange language of:

"The public offer will begin on 29 January 2008 and end on 1 February 2008. The allotment results will be announced on 11 February 2008" -- and that's for an article created in 2011.

In any case, just promotional cruft. I'll request a G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Liu, Lillian (2008-01-30). "New Media offering falls flat". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-08-04. Retrieved 2017-08-04.
  The article notes (my bolding):
  The initial public offering (IPO) by New Media Group Holdings, the only ongoing share sale in town, received cold market response yesterday as investors shunned the volatile market.
  That prompted some analysts to call for the company to put the deal on shelf.
  The magazine publishing unit, owned by tycoon Yeung Sau-shing's Emperor Group - which planned to raise up to HK$112 million from the new share sale - received very few subscriptions for the share.
  Analysts said the overall IPO market was bleak as almost all offerings have been called off in Hong Kong, and IPO activities will not pick up until the global economic outlook becomes clearer.
  A report from CASH Financial Services released yesterday said it did not recommend the stock to investors, citing slow growth in traditional publishing industry.
  "Traditional magazines and book selling businesses have very little room for further profit growth. New Media's counterparts in Hong Kong recorded losses in profit in recent years," the report said.
  New Media publishes five Chinese-language magazines, namely Oriental Sunday, Weekend Weekly, New Monday, Economic Digest and Fashion and Beauty.
  This verifies that CASH Financial Services published an analyst report about New Media. The quote "That prompted some analysts to call for the company to put the deal on shelf" also indicates that New Media has received substantial analysis by other analysts who have likely written analyst reports about the company.
  Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding):
  There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
  Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.
  Analyst reports can be used to establish notability per the quote "Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."
2. Ching-hoo, Hui (2008-02-13). "New Media's doubling debut". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-08-04. Retrieved 2017-08-04.
  The article notes:
  
  The IPO listing of New Media Group Holdings yesterday bucked a recent trend of poor public offerings when it more than doubled in value.
  Analysts predicted the first public listing of the lunar new year would do well, but New Media's 112 percent surge was well beyond the more conservative estimates of around 20 percent.
3. "Emperor media unit turns new page in IPO bid". South China Morning Post. 2008-01-16. Archived from the original on 2017-08-04. Retrieved 2017-08-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Emperor Group, the privately owned investment flagship of Albert Yeung Sau-shing, will list its magazine business on the main board as early as next month.
  But demand from investors for the offering may be blunted by growing competition in the crowded Chinese-language magazine market.
  Market sources said New Media Group would start marketing the offer to potential investors later this month. The size of the offering has yet to be determined.
  ...
  New Media publishes magazines covering everything from gossip to stock tips in Hong Kong, with titles including Oriental Sunday, New Monday, Weekend Weekly, Economic Digest, and Fashion and Beauty Weekly.
  Women's gossip weekly Oriental Sunday, with a circulation of more than 120,000 copies a week, is the best-selling title in the group. However, it goes head to head with Next Media's Sudden Weekly, which sells 190,000 to 200,000 copies.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow New Media Group Holdings Limited to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider the article to qualify for speedy deletion under {{db-spam}}. The article in general is neutrally written. Any promotional wording can be removed without deleting the entire article. Wording like "The public offer will begin on 29 January 2008 and end on 1 February 2008. The allotment results will be announced on 11 February 2008" for an article created in 2011 is probably due to incorrect tense usage by a non-native English speaker.
Cunard (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fully support deletion and agree with the nominator's reasoning. Initially I speedy deleted this, but have restored it so the discussion can reach its natural conclusion. Deb (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, CORP, CORPDEPTH. No independent and reliable sources available. This article is part of a promotional campaign - see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor Entertainment Group. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, per WP:PROMO. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:PRESERVE, the article should be merged/redirected to the parent company, Emperor Group, if the consensus is that New Media Group Holdings Limited is not notable. The company is notable, however, with coverage in China Daily and South China Morning Post.
Cunard (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the parent company should be deleted as promotional as well, so there will be nothing to redirect/merge too. Additionally we have WP:DON'T PRESERVE and WP:WHATISTOBEDONE, which make it clear that removal of content and even deletion are appropriate measures when content is unacceptable for the encyclopedia. In this case, the sources that Cunard has provided do not establish notability: the are passing mentions in articles that give more coverage to the parent company. In regards to the parent company: it is clear promotionalism that is eligible for deletion on those grounds alone. Since none of these articles are suitable for Wikipedia, deletion is the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.