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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VS Media[edit]

VS 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)

Promotional article relying on only self-published sources. Not notable per WP:COMPANY. Drm310 (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I sincerely hope that anyone would like to share why this page should be deleted other than all the existing MCN wiki pages, I am willing to do amendment to fulfill the requirement but first I need to know which part I need to correct, thank you. I have made certain editing to avoid potential promotional elements. I have also added some of the Hong Kong local press talking about this company as references, there is not any promotional elements in the page. Thanks.-Patrickyu2014 (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. I found an exact word-for-word copy of the first citation on another site [1], which makes me suspect it's a company-authored press release. Take that out, along with all the self-published sources (which I removed from the "Content and Creators" section and external links), and the only reliable source is the Marketing Interactive one. That's not enough depth of coverage to satisfy the notability criteria for companies.

• Delete or rewrite entirely. Article written by single-purpose account for promotional purposes. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. The quality of the writing is that of a promotional release, not an encyclopedia article; there is very little encyclopedic content here and the notability of the company is not clear. If it can be demonstrated that the company meets the relevant notability criteria then the article should be rewritten as an NPOV encyclopedia article. If not then it should be deleted for now. Citobun (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Far too promotional, even if it meets GNG, which I am doubtful about. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If there is in-depth coverage in Chinese-language sources which demonstrate notability, these should be added to the article (editors here can't reasonably be expected to find those for themselves). In that case, [[[WP:TNT]] would then be the best way forward. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2015 (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.