Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/News media

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to News media. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|News media|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to News media. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/News media/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also Internet-related deletions and publications for deletion. For news events, use Events-related deletions.

News media

The Sussex Newspaper

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

I'm failing to find any coverage of this online newspaper in reliable sources. I therefore don't believe it satisfies WP:NNEWSPAPER, WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. While claims about it being the fastest growing (from the article) or the most popular (from their website) online newspaper in Sussex sound impresive my WP:BEFORE turned up no independent in depth coverage to corroborate. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, United Kingdom, and England. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot even find an about page, apparently able to submit own articles. IgelRM (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as totally unverifiable, entirely unnotable and highly misleading. As a lifelong Sussex resident who is familiar with the county's published and online newspapers, alarm bells were already ringing when I saw this nomination and the claims being made in the article. In reality it seems to be a vanity site with a mix of churnalism and trashy stories scraped from the web, with absolutely no Sussex focus at all, and is not covered by any reliable sources. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lance

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet notability requirements. There is nothing in the article to establish notability of this student newspaper, and there is no coverage in non-local sources. Note that The Lance published its last newspaper issue in 2019. The official website (which was updated in a 2020 edit) is for a student news blog with the same name. Johnj1995 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NME covers

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NOT policy (specifically WP:INDISCRIMINATE): This simply a collection of data. The list of ~3,000 items has no explanatory information and no claim that any of the entries are notable in themselves – if any are, then they can be discussed at NME. MIDI (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate the two previous AfDs which were 11 and 15 years ago. Both AfDs ended with no consensus, although the second had discussion for little more than 24 hours. Most of the keep !votes in them seem to revolve around the overall topic of NME covers being notable, which may be the case, but that doesn't mean a list of the covers is – an article on NME covers discussing notable ones might be a valid article (if it's not better filling out NME#NME_covers), but this article is just indiscriminate information. MIDI (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom in current form. The list also fails WP:LISTN. Perhaps something like Lists of people on the United States cover of Rolling Stone could be done. – The Grid (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Music, and News media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a job for the NME to perform or another specialist wiki, not us. Nate • (chatter) 23:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: But I would also vote to delete the Rolling Stone and Time cover lists. (Really, who reads these?) I think discussing the concepts of what makes their covers unique is notable per reliable sources, but a listing of everyone is listcruft. But I am in the minority. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Seems to go against WP:NOTDIRECTORY #1 because without context it lacks encyclopedia merit. Dawnseeker2000 00:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the right place for the list of magazine covers. Dympies (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GTV Network (Pakistan)

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

Non-notable local TV station. Lacks independent coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_news_channels_in_Pakistan#Current_channels: if the sources are judged insufficient for a dedicated page. -Mushy Yank. 18:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SUCH TV

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

~~Regulatory actions/penalties like this and this are enough to pass WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)~~ I've nominated this article under WP:NCORP as it is a for-profit media company. Regulatory actions or penalties like this and this are WP:ROUTINE news articles and come under WP:ORGTRIV. We need WP:SUBSTANTIAL coverage that direct and in-depth about this company. Otherwise, it clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Thank you. Gheus (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nom seems to want to keep the article and the sourcing is fine. The ones used in the article and above count as RS. What was the issue, why was this nominated for deletion? Oaktree b (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't want to keep the article - I have corrected my nom rationale. Gheus (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Please elaborate on a reason for deletion, Gheus. Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noting the mistake, Nate. I have updated my reasoning. Gheus (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the discussion on the rationale provided now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_news_channels_in_Pakistan#Current_channels -Mushy Yank. 21:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public News (Pakistan)

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

Non-notable news channel, coverage is mostly related to its founder Yousaf Baig Mirza. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Urdu_news -Mushy Yank. 20:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Observer

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

Non-notable newspaper, coverage is mostly related to its founder, Zahid Malik. Fails WP:NCORP. I suggest to delete this article and then redirect to The Bangladesh Observer which was once a notable newspaper known as Pakistan Observer in Pakistan but was later renamed after East Pakistan independence. Gheus (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abb Takk News

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

The best source about this TV station is of Reporters Without Borders' article, but unfortunately it is very brief and says that this channel is known for "copying Indian TV channel ‘AajTakk’ down to its logo and most graphic designs." This is not enough to pass WP:NCORP which requires multiple in-depth articles in independent sources. Gheus (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Urdu_news -Mushy Yank. 20:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ground News

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, been in place since March 2024 UnikumMitsu-bishi (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, Websites, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. While I agree the article could be improved, I think there are enough sources currently including news coverage and a PLOS ONE study that demonstrate some notability. Since it has significant coverage from independent sources, I don't see how deletion would be warranted under WP:GNG Urchincrawler (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's enough WP:RS-based coverage here to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2603:6011:9600:52C0:414B:816B:94D5:DA4 (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ground News is trying to fill an important function for us, there is always controversy about the news, bias in the media, pollution of the discussion. Let's not be excessively critical of this organization for their imperfections, we can all post comments throughout the unsociable media and call attention to places where we see room for improvement. If this article needs more sources, let's find some, not throw away what we have now. Bartimas2 (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC) — Bartimas2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Please write in your own words why you'd like the article kept; first edit ever is to an AfD so it's likely definite this is not your first rodeo here. Nate • (chatter) 21:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' According to zerogpt, Bartimas2's comment was almost definitely written by a human. It's not a good rationale, but that's another issue. -- Mike 🗩 12:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable news aggregator; doesn't offer any coverage of its own and the sources read as PR rather than examining the product neutrally. Nate • (chatter) 21:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the service goal is valuable, they have a unique methodology. Methodologies can always be flawed and enough information and articles exist on them already. It is an actively changing news aggregation source and is worth watching. Fxober (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, now type out a rationale in your own words, not whatever Gemini or Co-Pilot wrote for you. This is not a sentence written by a human, and I suspect by this account's past contributions that the creator is no longer controlling it. Nate • (chatter) 21:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly not a valid argument. Badbluebus (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this isn't WP:ILIKEIT I don't know what is. Departure– (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This keep is not policy-driven. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: So basically, 2 people here who said keep (Sal2100, and Urchincrawler) made some good points over the fact that there's enough reliable sources (per WP:RS) and coverage to make it clear it was/is able to be to pass WP:GNG and therefore is able to be kept. Now is there stuff to improve in the article? Yes, there are stuff to improve on, but my opinion here still has some credibility. mer764KC / Cospaw⛲️ (He/Him | 💬Talk! • 📦Contributions) 21:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NCORP applies to this page, so the bar is a little bit higher than just passing GNG (and even if it wasn't, I'm still not convinced that this page would pass GNG). This source [1] is reliable and covers the subject in some depth. This other one [2] discusses Ground News among multiple other products/companies, but it doesn't focus on it enough in order to indicate that it is notable (WP:ORGTRIV). This one [3] sounds exceedingly promotional, which is especially suspicious because this website has a big demographic of technology-interested potential customers for the product that Ground News is offering, it seems to fail WP:ORGIND. Badbluebus (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that I see WP:ORGIND as being a bit perplexing as there's no evidence I can find of a corporate relationship between these two companies. However DigitalTrend looks like churnalism to me so I'd rate its reliability low anyway. Especially for establishing notability. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like an interesting startup but I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON unfortunately. (If the decision is delete, and if the original contributor doesn't speak up and/or claim it, can someone WP:USERFY it into my sandbox? I'll check on new refs periodically. It is a good starting point if more sourcing appears in future.) ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 23:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage in WP:RS to pass WP:GNG. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP is the relevant guideline here, and is considerably stricter than GNG. C F A 03:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Badbluebus. Fails NCORP. C F A 03:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Badbluebus. Fails NCORP and corresponding article is promotional like the press releases and other WP:DEPENDENTCOVERAGE it cites from. Of note, users voting Keep should probably be discarded if they do not provide a useful policy-focused decision. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Badbluebus' analysis. (a bit surprising considering how every single YouTuber was advertising this a while back) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has promise (and a massive marketing budget, given how often they sponsor youtubers) but I agree with anyone who says WP:TOOSOON ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 19:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userspace draftify per SageGreenRider. While my gut says keep and I do think WP:GNG is met, I do agree with the rationale that it is WP:TOOSOON and that WP:NCORP is not met. If this does become notable (which it likely will given their budget, but not to the point it should have a mainspace article), this article is an excellent starting point. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot find multiple reliable sources that discuss Ground News in-depth. -- Mike 🗩 12:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userspace draftify I concur that this likely weakly meets WP:GNG but not WP:NCORP but that doesn't mean a committed enough effort put through careful drafting and WP:AfC could not produce an article that meets WP:NCORP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Ping @DV79, do you want to move it to your sandbox?

~~Draftify~~ Delete and salt. Until more reliable sources are found, the notability is not enough for now. Better just wait for half a decade. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and salt? Why not just delete? C F A 03:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a wikipedia page that lists (and briefly describes) news aggregation sites, because I can't find one:
- The page "List of news aggregators" does not exist.

If articles like this are deleted, there should be (at the very least) a list of such sites. 2A00:23C6:ED81:2601:B91E:1FB0:DD7B:6F6A (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristo Foufas

AfDs for this article:

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

Article deleted in 2010, failed PROD in 2021. Sources exist, as added in that PROD of 2021, but article is not nearly notable enough for inclusion. LR.127 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and United Kingdom. LR.127 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably have enough for a basic article. This Independent article is the best [4], then some coverage [5] and [6]. Seems to be well-known to the viewing public. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per oaktree b. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the source eval for the ones by Oaktree. More input from community is appreciated since the article was PROD'd and AFD'd earlier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks to Oaktree b for digging up those sources, but I don't think there's enough for notability - he came out live on air, posted something controversial on Twitter and once had a bad experience with British Airways. Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Astaire (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Paul Ingles (via WP:PROD on 22 January 2024)