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

Mi Diario

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

I can't even find a reference that talks about this medium and without references or encyclopedic context there is no way to establish notoriety. Alon9393 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Panama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bancroft Times

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

Newspaper fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C&Rsenal

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

No evidence this YouTube channel passes WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. Its only WP:BEFORE "news" coverage outside of this article is on TheFirearmBlog (see WP:BLOGS). The other sources in the article are a Forbes contributor post (which is unreliable) and links to the subject's own channels. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Firearms. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find sources from the firearmsblog and reddit, and their own site. None of which help notability. The sources now in the article aren't RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes used for sourcing is a contributor piece, non-RS Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Dastak

AfDs for this article:

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

I have multiple reasons for proposing this article for deletion. Firstly, the page creator is blocked. Secondly, all the references provided are fabricated. The page creator has deceptively used the term 'National Dastak' in the title to mislead other editors. The article fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:WEB from any perspective." Youknow? (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and India. Youknow? (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources do exist, but they're all trivial mentions in lists or attributions - not the kind of discussion of the subject needed to show notability. Adam Sampson (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is not G5 eligible, as the creator was not a sock of a then-blocked editor: as such the creator's block is not relevant. And the basic facts provided in the article do check out, it's obviously not a hoax. Whether it's notable, I'm less certain: there is coverage, including articles focused on on this channel: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and a handful of others. There's not a lot of detail, hence "weak". Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed the page and the sources and I do see where the mislead was attempted where title of the sources were changed.
- Source 1 misleading title on the page is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj" but the actual title is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom is Helping Dalits Reclaim and Reassert Their Identity". There is nothing in the source except for passing mention that says "Yadav has previously worked with news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj."
- Source 2 misleading title on the page is "National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a Bahujan perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media" but the actual title is "BSP war room is turning up the heat on BJP and SP". The source has nothing significant except for passing mention that says "There are also news portals like National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a 'Bahujan' perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media."
- Source 3 has passing mention that goes "There are YouTube channels widely watched by Dalits, including National Dastak...".
- Source 4 has passing mention that goes "Web channel National Dastak played the video of Chandrashekhar Azad addressing the protesters."
- Source 5 has misleading title on the page that says "As per a report of the National Dastak, Riya Singh, a Dalit will pursue Ph D in Women's Studies" but the actual title of the source is "Riya Singh, a Dalit, tops TISS entrance exam". This source has nothing except for passing mention that is shown in the misleading title of the source.
- Source 6 has passing mention that says "In Uttar Pradesh, BJP is the single largest party across the polls except for National Dastak which is predicting BSP victory."
- Source 7 has passing mention that says "Speaking to National Dastak after organizing ‘Blood donation’ programme".
- Source 8 has passing mention "Videos on National Dastak have over 88 crore views." All the sources are poor with no significant coverage on the channel. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Davis (businessman)

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

All the references listed are about businesses and organizations that they were apart of and not about the person themselves and I can't find any other coverage about them. Does not pass WP:NBUSINESSPERSON or WP:ANYBIO. Propose to redirect to Newsweek. cyberdog958^Talk 23:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, News media, and Business. cyberdog958^Talk 23:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reference Meet The Mysterious Duo Who Just Bought Newsweek is a profile of Davis, as is Faith and a media icon: Newsweek's unconventional new owners (which is characterized here as "a lengthy profile of IBT founder Johnathan Davis". --The Cunctator (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think I would consider this source a profile of Davis as it’s more about his business partners along with most of the other references on the page. The second source is more promising but I don’t think that one source is enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. cyberdog958^Talk 19:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newsweek, and add in there anything that seems vital. I don't see enough independent sources for GNG and I don't think we can rely primarily on Newsweek itself as a source. If, in the future, there is more written about him then an article would make sense. Lamona (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AutoMowheelz

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

Declined and rejected at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace by creator this clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Theroadislong (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Transportation, Websites, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Sports Network

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

The article is devoid of citations indicating notability, and a cursory search suggests that this cannot be improved upon. It is WP:N CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Sports, American football, Baseball, Basketball, Football, Softball, Volleyball, Wrestling, Websites, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just posting some sources I found. [7][8] Not enough yet though. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To go with the two sources that WikiOriginal-9 posted above I've found, [9], [10], Midwest sports net via YouTube, [11], some doc? not sure what it is, primary source? Is this blog the owner of the network? release notice I really could post loads of sources, a lot seem to be from colleges news sources for the network. I am unclear what to make of the lot of them. @GiantSnowman: I really am unsure, but there are a lot of hits on google, and I've just posted maybe a small selection. I used the search term Victory Sports Network -wikipedia -victorysportsnetwork.com At the moment my flag would be no consensus I can't tell whether it's a keep or delete from what I've seen. Govvy (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see enough there, sorry. Giant Snowman 18:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go with keep but I don't dispute that the article sourcing needs improvement. I disagree that it is "devoid of citations" as the nominator states. Lacking? Yes. Devoid? No.--Paul McDonald (talk)
Delete: Of the sources in the article, they are either press releases or non-RS. Of the sources provided in the discussion, the first is a brief announcement which doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV, the second is about the unrelated network Victory Sports One, and the rest are in a similar vain as they are either about unrelated services with the same name or aren't reliable WP:SIGCOV. A search for better sources didn't reveal much more, and as such the WP:GNG is not met here. Let'srun (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Let'srun: Did I get some wires crossed and pick on sources for a different company? Govvy (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so, at least for some of the sources you linked to. The first couple of sources you linked to is about a new team owned streaming service for the Dallas Stars which the article itself notes is "newly formed", and to my knowledge has nothing to do with this network, which was formed in 2002 and covers NAIA athletics. I think the rest of those sources are about this company but they are either primary sources/interviews or non-RS. Let'srun (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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