From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch

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

News media

Parliamentary Business

Parliamentary Business (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stub is essentially an 'About Us' page for a publication that no longer exists. It appears as though it was intended to advertise the publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TiredMango ( talk • contribs) 05:21, 3 Jul 2024 (UTC)

PS!

PS! (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any sources to prove existence of this. Fails WP:GNG/ WP:NMAG. Please ping me if sources are found. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 23:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Phil Amato

Phil Amato (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO; lede reads like a TV guide. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 00:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, and Florida. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 00:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The Florida Times-Union source already in the article along with [ [1]] and [ [2]] each contain multiple sentences of in-depth, significant coverage of the subject. I'd say the WP:GNG is met here, and while this article needs to be improved, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun ( talk) 01:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Refs. 1 and 2 are not independent coverage, and the other sources here and in the article are pretty routine local coverage, failing WP:NOTNEWS (routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities ... is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage) – for examples, here are two similar articles from this year. Note that this person seems to be different from the member of the Missouri House of Representatives of the same name, who would be notable under WP:NPOL. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 01:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I didn't find anything better than the sources here above, and those do not approach notability. Routine reports of changing jobs in a local or regional paper are not near what would be needed to rise to GNG. Lamona ( talk) 04:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Benzinga

AfDs for this article:
Benzinga (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is my opinion that this article falls short of the WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH standards in regarding to sourcing and significant coverage. Some of the sourcing comes from the Benzinga site itself, other coverage is minimal and does not go into any great depth. At least one major contributor to the article was paid to polish the text (and that person has since been blocked). I welcome the conversation on the editorial merits of this article. Thank you. Capt. Milokan ( talk) 18:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Finance, Companies, Websites, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    note that a previous version of this article was deleted.
    I agree that nearly all available souces with exeption of CRJ article (which trashed Benzinga as reliable news source, in some depth) don't meet standards. Two or three other secondary sources ARE reputable sources, but mostly is just brief, superficial coverage of a Benzinga press release about its aquisition. These items don't confirm, (but merely "report") info in press release. The SEC I suppose is a "primary source," certainly reliable.
    Nearly all other sources here are junky.
    The assertion above, that somebody was "paid" to work on this article, seems plausible but unknowable, and thus in some sense incorrect. 212.95.5.96 ( talk) 11:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    (cont. from june 30) I vote for "delete" based on poor sourcing & other qualities.
    213.142.97.157 ( talk) 11:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

June 2024 United States presidential debate

June 2024 United States presidential debate (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar article already exists David O. Johnson ( talk) 19:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

To add, I hold that there is enough background information that should be considered. The specifics of this debate—sidestepping the Commission on Presidential Debates, Kennedy's Federal Election Commission complaint, Biden's performance and calls to withdraw that will not be entertained, critical reception such as "This Debate, We Could Hear Biden Speak. There His Troubles Began.", and a misguided Twenty-Fifth Amendment invocation proposal—suggest a debate that is unique and would not be sufficiently covered in an article about the debates in general, including the CPD's canceled debates and the forthcoming debate on ABC News on September 10. This situation occurred twelve years ago with Obama, some may add, but the consequences of this debate are much grander. To that end, there is paranoia surrounding this topic and many an unwarranted fear that should not be conflated with legitimate fallout. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy merge to 2024 United States presidential debates; I correctly merged and redirected this article before when elijahpepe created it the first time due to a lack of reasoning on his side why this split is necessary, as we are nowhere close to having size concerns on the main article. As it was before and is now, two reports of roughly the same length are being collaborated on and with different information, which is not great. We should adhere to guidelines on splitting and breaking or very highly reported news such that we should initially develop it in a section (and as Reywas92 said, was done for every other presidential debate article and never split) and after a few days should then discuss on the talk page to gain consensus on if a split is necessary, which I don't foresee it to be. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 02:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to 2024 United States presidential debates. There is no precedent for splitting up general election debates into separate articles. I looked at the United States presidential debates template (apologies, I'm not sure how to add a link here without linking the actual template) and every single debate year just has one article; there are no separate articles for each debate held (aside from this one). David O. Johnson ( talk) 05:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy merge There is no precedent for debates to have their own pages. No size concerns exist on the main page. Some existing content can be easily moved over to the main page. BootsED ( talk) 05:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — The comments stating there is no precedent have not addressed any substance about this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    They don't have to address the substance. Whatever substance the article has can go on the main page just fine. Even if there are GNG sources, per WP:NOPAGE we can still consolidate them in a larger contextual article. You need to propose a properly-performed split when warranted, not just create a duplicative/overlapping page. Reywas92 Talk 23:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and delete this. This should never have been created. The clear message from the previous AfD should have been accepted and respected. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 05:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While the suggestion to merge to 2024 United States presidential debates is reasonable, this particular debate really stands out and has a very significant coverage; I think it certainly passes WP:GNG. It is quite possible (and I hope) that Joe Biden will withdraw from the elections after such debates in favor of a younger colleague. Otherwise, he will lose these elections, and the consequences for the world will be enormous. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
To correct the record, there is no indication Biden will not withdraw. This occurred twelve years ago when Biden was vice president. There is no replacement for Biden, and his withdrawal would alter the chances of Democrats winning from where they are now to zero. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, there is no such indications at the moment. Speaking on the rest, many politicians and experts say the opposite [3], [4], [5], [6], which creates the controversy and makes this page worthy of the existence. My very best wishes ( talk) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Again, whether or not this page passes the GNG does not necessarily determine if it should stay or not; this page was mostly split from the 2024 United States presidential debates article without good reason; there were and are no size concerns for the main article so there was no need for a split, even if the new article happens to be notable enough to stand alone; both articles on this topic (the section of the 2024 debates article and this article) are roughly the same length, and as most collaboration is happening now on the main article, we shouldn't have two different reports on this debate be developing. To centralize work on this and to adhere to WP:NOPAGE, we should have it all be in this one section for now and then see, if size concerns arise, if it should be its own article through a proper discussion. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 23:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The guidance at WP:SIZERULE is not an end all for pages. For example, Criminal law in the Taney Court is 2,452 words, yet I doubt you would be able to raise an AfD against it. The concerns about converging articles are legitimate, but not a reason to delete; this was the subject of a lengthy discussion on The New York Times, where the Online platforms section was split into Online platforms of The New York Times at 2,514 words even as I said that the content there needed to be expanded more before a split. The solution seems to be to condense information about the debate in the article with the larger scope and expand this one. At 1,422 words, this article is not there yet, but as I said above, a significant amount of coverage has been ignored to create an article skeleton that works to gather information. Debates have garnered coverage before, but this is an unprecedented circumstance where there is now a consequence of a debate: discussions of Biden's withdrawal that do not appear to be in jest. I do not see how that does not warrant an article in some form. The article about the 2024 presidential debates has its scope; it is not an article about this event, which including the volume of information that is out there about this debate would create. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I didn't say the sizerule is the solution every single time, but with this case it certainly is. You don't get to own the article and create a separate one all by yourself just because you think there should be one, we should have actual consensus on the talk page first and a good reason to do so (usually size concerns but not always), which we don't have. We also have never made a separate article for any other presidential debate, so you have to give a good reason why this one should break precedent and be so more special than any other debate. I'm aware of the past ownership problems and premature separate article creations in the past you've had, and I think for now it would be best for you and all of us if you just let this topic develop in the section like it has been doing. We can see later on if you get to claim creation of a separate article; please read WP:NOPAGE and WP:DELAY. I'm not saying every short article that is somewhat related to a more broad article should be merged there, of course not, but rather that splits should not be made without good reason and size concerns just "because I think there should be a separate article". Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I provided reasoning above. The calls to withdraw themselves already make this a unique debate, but we don't have an article on Obama's first debate in 2012. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
So because there are some "calls to withdrawal" (which are already covered in the main article), you believe that warrants a separate article for the debate? Some1 ( talk) 00:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
As currently written, this is just a content fork. But perhaps it should be only briefly summarized on page 2024 United States presidential debates, and this page be kept as a valid sub-page. Note that the issue has become the matter of poling already, showing that possible replacements would do only 1% worse than Biden, but they may have a higher potential among undecided voters [7]. Some discuss if Joe Biden has a serious mental/health problem [8], [9]. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep Whether Biden will withdraw or not is WP:CRYSTAL, but the calls to withdrawal themselves, and more generally the impact of the debate, makes it more than pass WP:GNG on its own. While precedent is good, it isn't necessarily an argument if there wasn't a higher level of consensus, and individual debates might not all have the same level of coverage and notability. Furthermore, even if the page isn't yet large enough for WP:SIZERULE to be an issue, it might make it harder to have an in-depth coverage of all debates at once. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 00:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy merge to 2020 United States presidential debates per above arguments/comments, particularly those of Reywas92, Flemmish Nietzsche, and David O. Johnson. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 01:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The reaction to the first debate is notable and clearly more notable than other debates. Several editorial boards have called for President Biden to end his campaign as a result of the debate, which certainly passes WP:GNG. Existing coverage on 2024 United States presidential debates is long enough for its own article. Esolo5002 ( talk) 03:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or redirect to 2024 United States presidential debates, depending on whether there's anything of value that isn't duplicated. This is not a discussion about whether the subject is notable or passes GNG, it's about whether it should exist independently of the target article. There's hardly any useful information in this article that isn't in the target. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep at this point its section in 2024 United States presidential debates is getting very long, and this debate is exceptionally newsworthy compared to other presidential debates, so precedent arguments don't apply. — Ashley Y 09:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • The answer to that is to delete the WP:RECENTISM. Not to create a content fork. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, the content fork should be fixed. But it can be fixed by moving some content from page 2024 United States presidential debates to this page, and by leaving only a brief summary on page 2024 United States presidential debates. That would be optimal for readability. That's why we have sub-pages. This is the argument. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
        • Exactly this. Leaving aside the present content, this page should exist, given the salience of the event. — Ashley Y 21:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
          • Yes, sure. This is now a HUGE story, basically a crisis [10], with enormous political consequences. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
            Yes, it's a "HUGE" story, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't need a separate article. There still are not any size concerns or any good reason for a content fork, which may change if Biden does indeed cancel his reelection bid, but for now there is not as it is still just calls for him to step down and reactions to the debate, which do not warrant a separate article even if you think it is a "crisis".
            Even if there should be a separate article at some point due to the notability of this debate, this article creation and content fork was premature and has unsuccessfully tried to put the majority of content on the debate in this article, while currently most is in the main article, which most people seem to be fine with. Simply closing this debate as keep would actually be worse if it was clear it should be its own article, as the AfD result being a keep doesn't automatically mean we have consensus to move all the content over to this page and summarize it in the main article, and having the share of content between the two pages in limbo as it is now would probably be the worst outcome. if you really think we should have a separate article, we should discuss it on the talk page of the 2024 debates article after this debate is closed and all content here is merged to the main article, which is what should have been done originally. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 15:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It does not matter if he withdraws from the race or not. This is simply a highly notable political event that goes far beyond just a presidential debate! It therefore deserves a separate page. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
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 West Visayas State University where a subsection can be created should there prove to be other such publications. Forge Media is one model thereof that might be helpful here. Star Mississippi 19:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Vital Signs (school publication)

Vital Signs (school publication) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable student publication. No independent references. If there's anything of value in this article, it can be merged to West Visayas State University. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep or Merge with another article detailing publications within West Visayas State University 122.54.60.130 ( talk) 07:42, 1 July 2024 (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.

Erel Segal

Erel Segal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:JOURNALIST, WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV, just dummy articles! Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Kentucky Rain24, can you share your WP:THREE please? Journalists are among the hardest to research. gidonb ( talk) 13:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • this provides an in depth look at Segal's political views and places them in the context of Israeli right wing media, and indicates notability beyond Israeli media
  • this is a lengthy, in-depth interview dedicated to Segal, in Israel's highest circulation mainstream newspaper. This alone satisfies WP:SIGCOV.
  • this provides English language coverage of a notable controversy he was involved with, showing notability beyond Israel (DW is a German broadcaster)
Kentucky Rain24 ( talk) 14:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
#2 and #3 are not independent. BuzzFeed isn't very good but the journalist who wrote #1 is. gidonb ( talk) 16:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Buzzfeed News is rated "green" and reliable on WP:RSNP. Why you'd think that ynet and deutsche welle are not independent of Segal is beyond me. Kentucky Rain24 ( talk) 16:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The problem is that these are interviews, quoted content, and shared sexism in a tv-show. Not independent content or SIGCOV. These media are actually good. Buzzfeed is acceptable because of the author. gidonb ( talk) 16:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I think you are misreading the defintion of "independent" - ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent."- an interview with Segal is not produced by him but by the paper and journalist interviewing him.
Regardless, while the DW article includes a very short quote from Segal, it is neither an interview nor focused on that quote. Instead, it describes the controversy Segal was involved with, with other 3rd parties commenting about Segal. Kentucky Rain24 ( talk) 17:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I'll take another look and weigh again how much is independent content about Segal. Not ruling out any conclusion yet. gidonb ( talk) 17:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬  talk • ✏️  contribs) 14:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: There's coverage that mentions him, such as the DW article, but these aren't about this person. This [11] also mentions him, but just barely as the article talks about his employer. We don't have enough substantial coverage to keep the article Oaktree b ( talk) 03:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't think that "mentions him, but just barely " is a fair assessment of [12] - the article is about an event in which he is the main subject - his employer suspended him for something he did. He is the subject of both the headline and the sub-headline, he is the main topic of the first and second paragraphs ("The Kan public broadcasting corporation on Thursday suspended one of its anchors because he appeared in a video"; "News presenter Erel Segal was suspended, pending further notice, after the video was uploaded to Netanyahu’s Twitter account earlier Thursday."), he is mentioned in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs and is the subject of the 5th, there's a quote from the PM of Israel about him etc... Kentucky Rain24 ( talk) 14:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A very well-known journalist in Israel, and there are many sources for this. In addition, he is also a writer (2 books) and a musician. (Full disclosure: I wrote the article). HaOfa ( talk) 09:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 14:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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 delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Alhaqeqa Aldawlia

Alhaqeqa Aldawlia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Satellite TV channel based in Jordan that fails WP:NCORP. No independent secondary sourcing at all that I can find; the sources in the article are either database sources (Lyngsat, Jordanian government databases) excluded for notability by WP:ORGCRIT or fail verification entirely. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 18:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment. The editor who created this article has declared a conflict of interest with this subject so we must be especially vigilant to validate notability here. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 28 June 2024 (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.

Proposed deletions

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/News_media&oldid=1232375240"