Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astro (television)

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 Keep; significant rewrite/cleanup is desperately needed. However, notability is established and there are secondary sources present and more to be had. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Astro (television)[edit]

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

Regardless of notability, this article would need WP:TNT. It was written by an undisclosed paid editor, and the sourcing is almost exclusively either the company itself, a Weebly fansite (yes, really), or directory-type information such as market stats. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a major satellite broadcaster in Malaysia and it is also a company listed on the stock exchange. But I do agree that it needs major work and a thorough cleanup. – SMasters (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to stub it then I don't object to speedy close, but as-is it's perilously close to G11 material. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t agree that this article to be deleted. I think we should do a major cleanup to this article by removing bad grammars, promotional-like contents and unnecessary infos, in order to be an encyclopedia article. Fandi89 (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubify to a neutral state - Although I'm not Malaysian, I am aware of the company as being one of the biggest, if not the biggest television service provider in Malaysia, and a search confirms this status and results in coverage for the company: enough to pass WP:NCORP. However, the article is quite a mess and is essentially a promotional piece; as such, if the article is to be kept, the closer or any other editor should probably reduced the article to a short neutrally-worded stub then work from there. Basically WP:TNT without destroying the building. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unarguably this meet notability guideline but AfD is not cleanup. It can be restructured, reorganized without necessarily deletion. It has millions of viewers and satisfy all requirements of WP:BCAST, I will work in trimming down the promo language, but we shouldn't destroy while we are building –Ammarpad (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Astro article will be deleted soon, I hope any administrators can keep this article. We can do a major cleanup to this article by removing some copyrighted materials and any unneccesary contents. Fandi89 (talk) 04:42, 18 December 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.