Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/News media

Points of interest related to News media on Wikipedia: 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

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/News media/archive

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

Rudraneil Sengupta (edit | 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)

Lack of significant coverage in secondary and reliable sources. The subject fails Wp:NAUTHOR and wp:GNG. Creator is currently blocked as a sock puppet. Zuck28 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, News media, India, and Tamil Nadu. Zuck28 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Congress Post (edit | 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)

insufficient evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to justify a standalone article. The subject may be promotional in nature or lack encyclopedic relevance.

Unless reliable secondary sources can be provided to demonstrate notability, I recommend deletion of the redirect. Unclethepoter (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2025 (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/2025 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, Websites, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RCTV Sangbad (edit | 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)

Indian TV news channels are a dime a dozen. There is no claim to notability in this article, and it's frighteningly close to an A7 speedy. Sending to AfD over PROD in case Bengali-language editors have better luck, but judging by the low pageviews (59 in 30 days), there might not be a lot here. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and West Bengal. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AAFT (edit | 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)

A promotional article about a non-notable institute. The article is heavily based on unreliable and primary sources. No secondary reliable source available to establish Wp:SIGCOV, just passing mentions and trivial mentions.

If we remove, press releases, primary sources and blogs, merely passing mentions are available in actual news portals or wp:RS. Fails Wp:NSCHOOL, WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The institute's founder's article was also deleted recently. Zuck28 (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Arts, Journalism, News media, Theatre, Organizations, Companies, Fashion, Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass media in Ireland (edit | 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)

The article brings together two instances of media crossing the Irish border. It's not clear to me that this merits an article in itself, and the fact that the article hasn't developed much in the past 12 years from the contributors of the page creator indicates to me that this isn't an obvious point of discussion, or how this information is logically available within this encyclopedia. It might well make an interesting topic for a journal article, essay, or blog, but isn't to me what WP is for (thinking of WP:FORUM). Iveagh Gardens (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to propose Draftily as an alternative to deletion. The topic is encyclopedic, even if the current article isn't. Ike Lek (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. toweli (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G. L. DiVittorio (edit | 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)

I can verify that the subject of this biography has asked for it to be deleted; per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, this should be honored. Most of the sources contain incidental or passing coverage, or otherwise focus on tweets/internet stuff that hasn't gotten lasting coverage (WP:NOTNEWS). In another context this might be a "borderline" case, but since the subject wants it deleted it should be. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, and Politics. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sure that it is DiVittorio who requested deletion and not a troll, then the article should be deleted. I created it because she asked how to make a Wikipedia article for The Pocket Report through a post on its Twitter account in 2022. There wasn't enough independent coverage of The Pocket Report to justify its own article, but there was on DiVittorio herself. She posted positively about the article after that, so I do not think she objected at the time, but maybe she changed her mind. Please just confirm by contacting her directly through the @thepocketreport TikTok account first, because it is still active as of 4 days ago, so the claim that DiVittorio is no longer a creator does not seem to be accurate, and she is frequently subject to trolling because of her political commentary. – CanadianJudoka (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CanadianJudoka See her IG; her current story (set to expire soon, but I have a screenshot) asks for the page to be "taken down". Someone who is friends with me and her additionally verified it with me. I don't know anything about that edit summary, I didn't base my deletion rationale on it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Somebody else added that photo a while back, and the incorrect middle name was added by the same user who claims that she's not a creator anymore. But she clearly wants it deleted, so I see no reason to wait. – CanadianJudoka (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clear BLPREQUESTDELETE case. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BLPREQUEST, no need to keep the article as someone we absolutely need to have an article about. LightlySeared (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Baqi:) (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald Weekly (edit | 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 article is very out of date and I'm not seeing the sourcing to confirm even basic details about its longevity and ownership. I can't find any coverage of this paper at all, even under its (potentially many) alternate names. The acquisitions are tough to follow... it may be owned by Lake Norman Publications now, after stints with McElvy Media Group (maybe?) and others. The best evidence I can find is LinkedIn reports from former news editors who seem to now work at Norman. I hate deleting news publications, but this content is inaccurate and I can't even find press releases or acquisition announcements to verify it. An enterprising editor may be able to find more coverage for a more prominent iteration of this magazine or its parent publisher, whoever that currently is. Suriname0 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and North Carolina. Suriname0 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Majumder (edit | 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)

Doesn't appear to pass WP:JOURNALIST; coverage in article is passing mentions. See WP:COI and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThePerfectYellow; I believe several major contributors to this article were paid to edit this article. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and India. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Delhi, and Jharkhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mwebantu (edit | 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)

The article does not meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline. It lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most citations are from blogs, press releases, or user-generated content, which do not establish encyclopedic notability. The tone is promotional and may reflect a conflict of interest. Without multiple independent in-depth sources, this article does not warrant a standalone entry. Icem4k (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Scholarly sources analyze this media source as a major news source for Zambia, for better or worse. See [1], [2]. The article is in dire need of cleanup but there are fortunately a lot of scholarly sources with which to write a balanced article. Probably the company's marketing team will not like the article that gets written though. Marked with cleanup tags; I may be able to help clean this once the AfD is over. FalconK (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: One academic paper, no matter how well-researched, is not sufficient to demonstrate lasting notability per WP:GNG. There's no mainstream or sustained coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources. Mwebantu is not profiled by any major media outlets, has no significant awards, and no long-term impact demonstrated in third-party sources. Cleanup cannot substitute for notability.--THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that cleanup and notability are orthogonal, but I suspect the desire to delete this article is in large part due to the absolute mess the article is. The sources discussing it, many of which are very critical of its coverage, are considerably more than one single academic paper. I found two after searching for less than 5 minutes. It is also treated in [3], and described in Matambo, E. (2025). Zambia's Youths and the 2021 General Election. I would agree it is marginal and the article would be both completely different from this one and much shorter, but unfortunately this site seems to be a reasonably major part of Zambia's media landscape. FalconK (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per sources provided in this discussion. When determining WP:GNG notability, one doesn't even need to look at the content of the article per WP:CONTN. Subject notability is independent of the article.

I will also throw in [4] and [5] for consideration. More sources also likely exist in other languages.

- Ike Lek (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.224.201 (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I say delete cause Based on the sources presented in this discussion so far is, Mwebantu appears to have some coverage in scholarly and academics publications that analyze its role in Zambias media landscape. However, the question will always remains whether this coverage is sufficiently significant, independent, and reliable to meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline for a stand alone article on wiki. That is why i say delete. --Chise95 (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep per WP:GNG Jdn2004 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Move to daft: This article covers a kind of notable Zambian online news platform, but it currently contains promotional language, lacks sufficient independent reliable secondary sources, and needs restructuring to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Moving it to Draft space will allow editors to improve sourcing, tone, and format without the risk of deletion cause while Mwebantu may be recognized locally as a Zambian online news platform, the article currently fails to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline). Most of the cited sources are either not independent or lack significant in-depth coverage about the subject. Without reliable secondary sources that establish its broader impact or recognition, this article does not meet Wikipedia’s inclusion standards in its current form. It may be better suited for user Draft space until further improvements can be made or just delete it.

ZedKuChalo (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom and per ZedKuChalo

GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have noticed some cleanup on the article, but the links in the references do not correspond to the claims they are supposed to support. In most of them, the sources either do not mention the subject at all or discuss entirely different topics. This raises concerns about the reliability and relevance of the citations.Icem4k (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Two Sevens (via WP:PROD on 22 March 2025)