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. In accordance with usual AFD procedure, contributions from new and unregistered users have been given lesser weighting. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stifle, it's been years since this decision was made and new information has come to light about thecompany. There have been fund raising and other news with reputable sources. Kindly restore the article so I can make necessary corrections as needed to show its notability. Abeycity37 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tdpel media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable, promotional. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The company is popular on its own with a physical address and so I thought it should have a wikipedia presence. It is not meant for or need the promotion. Abeycity37 (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the publishing company passes WP:GNG. Worldsolarpower (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable website/organisation. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 07:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the publishing company passes WP:GNG. The company also has secondary notable referrence. Abeycity37 18:09, 01 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable news organization that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NMEDIA. The award it won itself non-notable, perhaps in the future it maybe eligible for a page. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NOTEWORTHY, WP:GNG. Publishing company has secondary mentions and has notable work quotations ^[1] proving reliability, coverage and notability. Future eligibility makes a case for current eligibility. 102.89.41.54 (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes. I agree with the above argument. The media company is well referenced and linked, making a case for popularity. And popularity in this category, well, makes a case for notability, which is the bone of contention. Exquisit (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm somewhat uncomfortable seeing a large number of SPAs in this relative to the overall size. I've added the standard "not a vote" label to the top, though I have yet to look through online sources to see if the mere assertions that it passes GNG have any basis in reality. The sources in the article clearly don't establish its notability, however. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Its promotional because 3/4 of the sources are from the company itself and show no notability to the company. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 22:29, 13 June 2022 (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.