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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete and redirect toGMA Network (company). Nothing sourced to merge and history has copyvio issues, so deleting before redirect.czar02:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GMA Worldwide (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)

Article wholly supported by primary references. Searches turned up virtually nothing except for press releases and brief mentions. Should be a redirect toGMA Network, the parent company. Also has the flavor ofWP:CORPSPAM.Onel5969^{TT me}01:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 Hi ImKazaro, GMA Network and GMA Worldwide is a separate company. GMA Network is an television channel in the Philippines, and this might not considering being nominated for deletion since the article I have created shows a reference or reliable sources. And This apply to all articles I have seen.Kazaro (talk)06:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles requiresignificant coverage in reliable sources that areindependent of the topic.

So that means, several references - and not their own website.

Also, an article must beneutral. This says,clients and partners can expect a consistent stream of well-crafted programs - which is pure spam.86.20.193.222 (talk)06:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect toGMA Network: wholly promotional and not independently notable. --Slashme (talk)08:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect toGMA Network. Seems to be just the network's licensing arm. News about GWI seems to be focused on either the celebration of its 20th anniversary and them securing rights to air certain shows at their parent network. --Lenticel^(talk)01:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the parent company:GMA Network (company)#Television. --Bluemask (talk)03:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slashme, This could be the good resource about the company,^[1] and also this company could be found on Bloomberg^[2] where it say's it's a private company.Kazaro (talk)04:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the first is simply a press release on an industry site, while the second is just a business listing.Onel5969^{TT me}11:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect toGMA Network (company). Not notable, references came from just a primary source, weasel words, peacock.Hollyckuhno (talk)04:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Television-related deletion discussions.Shawn in Montreal (talk)12:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Companies-related deletion discussions.Shawn in Montreal (talk)12:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Philippines-related deletion discussions.Shawn in Montreal (talk)12:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re copyvio I have reduced this "article" to a single sentence. The entire contents had been pasted verbatim fromhttp://www.gmaworldwide.tv/aboutus. Frankly, the foundational copyvio would qualify it for speedy deletion perG12.Voceditenore (talk)10:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksVoceditenore - I was at work when I looked into this article, where I can't access my copyvio program. Meant to do that, and quite honestly slipped my mind.Onel5969^{TT me}13:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The author of this article has now also createdList of mergers and acquisitions by GMA Network Inc. - it may have similar problems.86.20.193.222 (talk)15:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge toGMA Network (company), notability of GMA Network is not automaticallyWP:INHERITED by GMA Worldwide. The status of GMA Worldwide to GMA Network is irrelevant, if its a networking arm/division or a separate affiliated company. The company/entity does not meetWP:GNG--Hariboneagle927 (talk)05:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My interpretation of ATA and PRIMARY was that they are not verboten, and the absence of secondary sources does not qualify for automatic AfD.L3X1My Complaint Desk15:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as perHariboneagle927 above.-- HighKing⁺⁺19:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect toGMA Network (company) -- there's nothing to merge. Delete history due to copyvio.K.e.coffman (talk)18:09, 7 March 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.