Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CMA Group

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 merge to Consolidated Media Associates. As an apparent duplicate. No consensus as to whether the subject is notable; that could be determined by an AfD of Consolidated Media Associates. Sandstein 13:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CMA Group

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I'm not seeing enough evidence of notability. Although I found one or two sources about its founder and that's not an evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionably solid enough for the applicable solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I could not find any reliable sources covering the subject too. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 08:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We wouldn't dream of claiming that one of the biggest media conglomerates in a smaller country that happened to be Western and anglophone was not notable, so why should we do so for an equivalent company in the world's 7th most populous country? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge with Consolidated Media Associates, which is clearly the same organization. There seems to be a number of potential cites that validate the article, but I'm not qualified to pass judgment on Nigerian media for WP:SECONDARY. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Of course the articles should be merged. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Many mentions (About 17 articles from RS), but little coverage. Esquivalience ^t 02:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please Look Again: I found a number of press articles that discuss the company. There's almost nothing under "CMA Group" but a decent number of seemingly credible articles under "Consolidated Media Associates". Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article could do with more cleanup, though. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Esquivalience didn't make any comment about the argument for merging above, so it seems that, as seems to be standard practice in these deletion discussions, that comment took no account of the discussion that had taken place before. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2016 (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.