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. Despite a lot of discussion there is a surprisingly clear consensus to delete these articles because of notability and promotionalism concerns. I assume, though, that a neutrally written single article about the group might be acceptable to many, and might be a basis for userfying some of this content in order to integrate what is relevant into the recreated main article.  Sandstein  19:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Entertainment Group[edit]

Emperor Entertainment Group (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)

This is a series of related articles created by what appears to be the same group of SPA editors (sockpuppets were confirmed for some recent edits but most of the suspicious ones are too old to check). All of these articles share the same poor sourcing and promotional language issues. In lieu of deletion, conversion to a redirect to Emperor Group might be a good alternative option.

Emperor Motion Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emperor Capital Group Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emperor Watch & Jewellery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emperor International Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emperor Entertainment Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Media Group Holdings Limited, which is related. Yunshui  07:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The promotional wording was added to Emperor Entertainment Group by the new user Leoje 0192 (talk · contribs) in 2011. The article has existed since 2004, and in between 2004 and 2011 there are many neutral versions that can be reverted to. I have removed the promotional addition.

    The article has negative coverage of the subject, so it does not fail WP:NOT:

    In 2003, Albert Yeung was again under investigation by the ICAC, along with Hong Kong singer Juno Mak, for allegedly bribing TVB for the Jade solid gold awards. As many as 30 people were arrested in connection with corrupt allegations with preferential treatment of singers and controlling the music billboards.

    I do not see promotion in the other articles, but I would be grateful if you would point any out so I can fix them.

    Cunard (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for removing that wording. Valoem below also removed some, which is also appreciated. On the point of negative coverage: negative coverage alone does not prevent an article from being promotional. Its relatively common to see minor criticisms included in spam pieces so as to avoid G11 deletion by those who know who the process works, so the mere inclusion of this does not exempt an article from compliance with NOT. The ultimate question I ask in all these cases is whether or not simply having a Wikipedia article would be more prominent coverage than the subject has ever seen before, and if the article clearly exists with the intent of promotion. That is the case in all of these articles. It is therefore excluded both on notability grounds and on NOT grounds. The sourcing you provided does not comply with our standards for corporations under WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP. Deletion is the optimal outcome based on both the notability guideline and our exclusion policy as found in NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some additional promotional tones. Valoem talk contrib 15:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TonyBallioni: You make some good points. I didn't think about the fact that promotional wording in an article equals promotional intent. Thanks. And, oh yeah, the Wikipedia articles are the most significant coverage these companies have ever received - I am chuckling at that one - because it is true. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discussion on the notability of the subjects and the sources provided and the fact that the promotional content was only added later to some of the articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 18:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It had significant coverage in Chinese but not in English, if possible (if they all were subsidiaries), merge to Emperor Group is a solution. Matthew_hk tc 11:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, COI material is another thing. Some of the company such as Emperor Entertainment Group and Emperor Motion Pictures were notable and pass GNG as major music and movie label of Hong Kong. Matthew_hk tc 12:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • EEG & EMP are a major Hong Kong film studio & music label and should definitely be kept. Not only has Cunard shown comprehensively that they pass WP:GNG, but they have been a significant force in Hong Kong culture in the the last 30 years. The sourcing in our article is terribly weak now, but they are discussed in many SCMP articles; the difficulty is that "Emperor" is a word that comes up rather a lot in Chinese newspapers. In particular, there are many entries in the famous Lai See gossip column that assume Hong Kongers already know these firms. In addition, EEG is the only local label discussed in Ho's working paper on HK popular music, subsequently published in the journal Popular Music. I've also no doubt that there would have been far, far more articles in Hong Kong's thriving Cantonese press (which is national press coverage for this purpose). I tried looking for a Cantonese article covering the group as a whole but it was like looking for a needle in a haystack because of the vast amount of (non-significant) mentions in countless articles about various singers, films, and hotel projects. While Chinese Wikipedia does not carry any authority under our policies, I think it's interesting to note that EEG has its own template there and is the first in the domestic list of the record labels template.
The idea that WP would be the most significant coverage those two firms have achieved is very far off the mark. TonyBallioni has cited WP:NOT in good faith, but needs to explain what part he is referring to, because for these two subsidiaries, the only relevant part I can see is WP:NOTPAPER. ;-) The mentions of WP:PROMO must be referring to some earlier revision; the one I see now is fine and the EEG article discusses an ICAC investigation, which is about as far from self-promotion as you can possibly get!
  • AFAIK the other (non-media) subsidiaries don't have anything like this cultural impact and the articles about them can safely be folded into the main Emperor Group article with redirects. Matt's talk 08:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Originally the citation was of NOTSPAM alone because Cunard's wall of text that does not satisfy the GNG is so hard to argue against because it's overwhelming. My view now is that it still fails WP:N/PROMK, the sourcing Cunard provides is trivial or promotional:there's a lot of it, but a Wikipedia article would still be the most significant coverage these subjects have ever received: that's enough in my mind to fail the GNG and NOTSPAM since there was clear promotional intent. I'd also like to note for the next closer that there was a clear consensus to delete before the relist, and that the relisting comment here borders on a !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The magazines of deleted New Media Group Holdings Limited was somewhat a household name in Hong Kong (which write Chinese, so you 99% can't build an article with English only source), it just not quite notable to knew they were sold and have the new owner "New Media Group Holdings". Mixing COI deletion and GNG deletion look awful BTW. Promotional material should be cleaned, COI should not be allowed, but if people keen on building pass GNG article but low importance, instead of creating high-importance one first, not sure it will "promote" the company or not even the editor was not a paid editor. Matthew_hk tc 17:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If COI was involved. The best way was delete and restart a new one. Matthew_hk tc 15:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is little to none usable material that is not already present in the main article. Merge does not seem appropriate. Rentier (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If I were to close this today, it would be defensible to close it as delete. But, I think it would be valuable to hear from @Deb, Kudpung, Rentier, Steve Quinn, and Yunshui:, all of whom commented early in the discussion, whether the sources, presented after they commented, change their opinion or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just one source. Most of the articles up for deletion had around one or two, if that. At least a couple are needed to satisfy CORPDEPTH. South Nashua (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your conclusion that one source is insufficient to establish notability. I provided more sources above and would be grateful to hear your thoughts about those sources.

    Cunard (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is irrelevant. Matthew_hk tc 04:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is relevant. The authors of the merged material must be attributed. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusing text within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright, which says, "If material is used without attribution, it violates the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the Reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy." Attribution for these three edits is not possible with the article histories deleted.

Cunard (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a purely procedural note, keeping the edit history for the source material is just one way to meet the attribution requirement (albeit, the easiest and most common). As described in WP:MAD#Record_authorship_and_delete_history, other acceptable ways are citations in the edit summaries, or on the destination article's talk page. 00:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Keeping the edit history is the easiest and most common way to meet the attribution requirement. The only sensible reason to delete the history and do the other methods is if the edit history contains BLP violations or copyright violations so cannot be preserved.

Cunard (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith and Cunard:As a reply to the procedural note only here: I believe that I should have fixed the attribution problem: because so little of the articles were actually copied, it was very easy to identify the copyright holder behind the specific sentence or clause that was copied. I've done edit summary attributions (seen immediately below). Since the authors of any part of an article own their contributions in whole and are licensing them to us under CC-BY-SA 3.0, this should be enough to satisfy our licensing criteria since the parts copied went unchanged after they were initially inserted into the articles, there are actually only one or two copyright holders to the material copied. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard, thank you for pointing this out: I've fixed the attributions in the edit history per WP:RUD with the following three edits: [1] [2] [3]. If there are any other potential CC-BY-SA issues before deletion of these articles, please let me know so I can make the necessary attribution in history for copyright purposes. Luckily with Wikiblame it is very easy to identify the original author of every word so attribution shouldn't pose a problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That Northamerica1000 merged some of the material in the articles to Emperor Group demonstrates that there is information in the articles worth preserving and merging to Emperor Group. It would not help the encyclopedia to delete this content.

Cunard (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NA1000 added short 2.5 sentences that barely meet the standards for unique creative expression, and that anyone could have easily created on their own. The neccesary attribution has been provided for copyright purposes. As described above, keeping these articles does hurt the encyclopedia. I don't think we'll ever agree on that, but I did want to clarify how little content was copied for the closer or any other editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is more material from the six articles that can be merged to Emperor Group. Deletion would prevent that from happening so deletion would not help the encyclopedia.

For example, this content in Emperor Entertainment Group:

EEG was founded by Albert Yeung, a businessman in Hong Kong. The music label was originally called Fitto Record, until 1999. During the Fitto era, artist signed under the label includes Julian Cheung, Bondy Chiu, and the late Roman Tam. The label is affected by 1997 Asian financial crisis, which has caused the label, to be acquired by EEG in 1999. During the EEG's acquisition of Fitto, Nicholas Tse has become one of the artist rosters.

is neutrally written and can be merged to Emperor Group.

Cunard (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The parent organization for the six companies is Emperor Group, not Emperor Multimedia Group. The main article already contains (in my opinion sufficient) information about each of the subsidiaries. Rentier (talk) 09:17, 28 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.