Talk:DPG Media

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Dpg-media-Logo.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Wegener (company) into DPG Media

While this historical company is notable per se, it merged into DPG Media and hence their histories overlap. In other words, this article rehashes information. Important: if you would like to preserve Wegener (company) in its poor shape, PLEASE do not make notability claims, as notability is not the issue, but information organization claims. This is not an AfD! Mentioning this only because it is or has become a common mistake at merge discussions. gidonb (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, given that the history of Wegener (company) stretching back to 1903, is extensive enough to warrant distinct coverage. The Dutch article, for example, shows that a better solution is to expand from the Dutch, rather than to merge. Klbrain (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a notability claim. Not relevant as nom claimed upfront that the topic is perfectly notable just not extensive enough and elsewhere relevant. All this had been explained as part of the nomination. Since notability is not an issue, also after a merger, a really extensive article on Wegener would still be an option. The nomination addresses the information in each article as it is. Not in the hypothetical terms of what could have been in an ideal world but this is implicit. gidonb (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining opposition; I was not making a notability claim, but rather one about the organization of materials; specifically that "the history of Wegener (company) stretching back to 1903, is extensive enough to warrant distinct coverage". That is, readers are best served by having the extensive independent history of Wegener covered separately. That is, grounds WP:NOMERGE reasons 1 ("clunky"), 2 and 3. Klbrain (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Direct translation?

Shall we translate the Dutch version of this page here, so that they contain the same information? https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/DPG_Media KimFTH (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KimFTH, in general, Nlwiki is not known for quality but if you find some qualities that aren't here -- please do reconcile! Please refrain from any COI and puff! gidonb (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KimFTH, beyond the puff and COI that was very time consuming to erase, the bad use of tenses was a huge pain. PLEASE refrain from using present tense anywhere in history. It's official and important WP policy! TBT, after a tedious cleanup, the article does look better than before your additions! For the future, please add content ONLY in Wikipedia style and not as corporate puff. gidonb (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Berlingske Media into DPG Media

Short article, overlaps with its parent gidonb (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, given the distinct history back to 1749; hence, improve rather than merge. Klbrain (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing with no merge, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Medialaan into DPG Media

Medialaan disappeared into DPG Media. Their histories overlap. gidonb (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]