Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/News media

< Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coffee (talk | contribs) at 08:53, 20 December 2019 (Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Amy Kellogg.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:53, 20 December 2019 by Coffee (talk | contribs) (Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Amy Kellogg.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Points of interest related to News media on Misplaced Pages:
Category – Deletions


Deletion Sorting Project
(talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

Deletion Sorting
Project

AfD: Today, Yesterday

Delsort scripts

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 {{Misplaced Pages: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 {{Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 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. Tone 19:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Amy Kellogg

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

I did a check for sources after coming across this article and seeing it only uses primary references. I've found nothing but passing mentions in published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Those passing mentions have to do with Kellogg's interviews of other or stories she has reported on but do not cover Kellogg in detail. If I'm missing a source I'd be happy to be shown it. As of now, appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a non-notable TV personality. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete journalists are not default notable, and there is not enough coverage here to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a non-notable journalists/TV personality.-Nahal 18:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Jonas Max Ferris

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

I did a check for sources after coming across this article and seeing it only uses primary references. I've found only found 3 passing mentions in published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Those passing mentions have to do with Ferris' company MAXfunds.com, and do not go in depth into this person. If I'm missing a source I'd be happy to be shown it. As of now, appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a non-notable TV personality. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete - lots of quotes and mentions as a pundit, but no actual WP:SIGCOV of the man himself. Fails WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete we need more coverage to show notability. Just because you appear on TV does not mean you are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep for now. I added a little information. Searching is a little difficult since he has been a financial pundit since 2002.Patapsco913 (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need discussion on the article following Patapsco913's improvements
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 10:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep He has been personally discussed in a number of sources beyond just being quoted. The sources added by Patapsco913 discuss a website which he operates which was mentioned at length in several independent secondary sources. He appears to have been a moderately high profile figure in the investment world for some time, beyond just being a pundit. Machetazic (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yet not a single source added by you or Patapsco913 has been in-depth coverage of Ferris himself (merely more coverage of Maxfunds and now a Fox News story Ferris discussed on air once). MaxFunds.com potentially having some notability, and stories Ferris has covered on Fox News getting secondary coverage, are not justifications for Ferris having a stand-alone article himself. So, in no way has the article been improved to our standard of retention. And, I still do not see a path for that to happen here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. ZXVZ (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked sock. Captain Eek ⚓ 04:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek ⚓ 04:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Agree with above commenter that the cited additional sources are not actually coverage of Ferris per se but instead of his website. As such my delete vote stands. FOARP (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete there is just not very much in the way of significant coverage coming up in my searches.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tone 09:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sabrina Sabbagh

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

After removing all unreliable sources from the article, there are no sources in this. I did a check for sources online as well, and found no published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a non-notable journalist. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Spartaz 08:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Bangla Tribune

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

Non-notable online news portal per WP:NMEDIA. First source is owned by the same group, Second is an unrelated piece written by its publisher and the forth one is just a passing mention. Usual searches are also ended up falling WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. ~ Nahid 15:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid 15:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid 15:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 18:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 20:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep reliable sources exist. Wm335td (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tone 10:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The Pilot (Canadian newspaper)

Not a notable publication; not encyclopedically relevant.--NL19931993 (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect to SaltWire Network (the owner). Newspapers are not inherently notable just because they exist, per WP:NMEDIA, but must state more than just "it exists and here's a glancing namecheck of it in one source about the parent company to prove it". If we had the sources to actually write a little bit of real content about its history, then this would be a keep — but the only such source I can find is from a sister publication inside the SaltWire umbrella, which means it's not a fully independent source for the purposes of establishing its notability. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America 03:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The Overcast

Not a notable publication; not encyclopedically relevant.--NL19931993 (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP and sources do exist WP:NEXIST. Notable. The CBC covers it Lightburst (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete I couldn't find any RS to support its notability!--Saff V. (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 04:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

TippNews DAILY

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

Page is pretty much just an "about us" with no significant external coverage - references are the newspaper's website or lists of businesses. Didn't find anything in a BEFORE search, though it's possible I missed something since most of my searches turned up articles from the subject itself. Page appears to have been created by the paper's founder. creffett (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

MichaelSMcDermott (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC) The subject of this Wiki has been in publication since 2009, and has over 3,000 readers a day. The local subject matter is pulled from a community of only 10,000, so there is very little external "buzz" made about it as would a publication serving a larger community. As this is a small town digital publication, Misplaced Pages is being utilized to document the newspapers that came before it, as well as the ones that come after. Unlike metros that have consistent news sources across generations, the news industry in smaller towns often go bankrupt, creating a "news desert". Misplaced Pages is the sole neutral place to find documentation about where to source stories a decade ago for Tipp City, Ohio. As for the link/mention of Bash Foo and the publisher, that too is done so that people seeking out information about news in this town can find out how to contribute, support, and build upon this effort. Also, without the individual efforts of the publisher, there is no publication. TippNews DAILY is listed in the , which should alone support it's continuance here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelSMcDermott (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 19:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

UnHerd

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

There is virtually no substantive coverage of this website by news RS, which means it's neither notable nor is it possible to write a well-sourced article about the website. A search of mentions of UnHerd at the BBC, FT and the Guardian reveals no substantive mentions of this website (only off-hand mentions and in op-eds). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep the cited sources such as New Statesman and the The Spectator are notable and reliable and give substantive coverage of the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep: There seems to be enough to start the article. As a source it has been cited by others and a few articles have been written about it. If things don't improve over the next few years then I would support removal at that time. I would rather err on the side of keeping it and deleting it later vs repeating something like the Donna Strickland case where an article was created, deleted then recreated later. Springee (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments about the notability established by the sources provided by Jweiss (or others to come) will help to establish consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Deleting is an inappropriate suggestion made at a heated political moment. This is a reputable - if newish - political magazine. Substantive coverage was easy to find, I added an article from Vice to the articles already mentioned by Jweiss11. The fact that the Press Gazette, the British trade magazine covering journalism, covers UnHerd is dispositive. WidenerStacks (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Categories: