Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/News media

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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

watch

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

News media

GIGAZINE

GIGAZINE (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 propose redirecting to gigazine because it is a stub. TPI81AF (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Internet, Websites, and Japan. TPI81AF (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Speedly close - redirect I just made this article but now I see that someone at the same time submitted a more complete version through the AfC process. There is nothing here that the other version does not already have. This should just be a redirect as I am the only contributor, the other version is more complete, and the other version was written earlier. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Star Stuff

Star Stuff (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 WP:BEFORE search returned no coverage or reviews of the show that constitutes SIGCOV. WP:BROADCAST, which mandates GNG, fails due to a lack of reliable coverage. The current source is WP:UGC and does not count towards that. The redirect target, List of programs broadcast by ABC Television (Australian TV network), should suffice here as an ATD. 11WB 💬 20:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Science, and Physics. 11WB 💬 20:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Newsome, Brad (2011-03-30). "Written in the stars". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2011-04-02. Retrieved 2026-08-12.

     Brad Newsome is "the streaming and pay TV critic for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age". The article notes: "The questions — and answers — that come out of those fields could hardly be more fundamental. Gary’s weekly radio program and podcast, StarStuff, is named after Carl Sagan’s famous observation that ‘‘we are made of star stuff’’. Sagan was speaking literally: every individual atom of carbon, oxygen, iron and sodium and almost every other element in our bodies was manufactured billions upon billions of years ago inside stars that died long before our own sun was born. ... Gary began StarStuff 13 years ago as a weekly five-minute space-news bulletin on ABC NewsRadio. The show no longer airs on NewsRadio but it has been picked up by some ABC stations and is available as a podcast. It is also rebroadcast by the US National Science Foundation as part the Science 360 news website."

  2. Newsome, Brad (2006-05-18). "Late news for the starry-eyed". The Age. ProQuest 363801076.

     The article notes: "Space, as any good sci-fi fan knows, is the final frontier. It is also the first love of ABC Newsradio science editor Stuart Gary. And whether or not we are alone in the universe, Gary is not alone in his fascination with what's happening light years away from our little blue sphere. Every Saturday and Sunday night his StarStuff program has listeners across Australia turning their eyes to the skies. ... At ground level, Gary encourages children and adults alike to get a closer look at the wonders of the galaxy by buying a telescope. ... StarStuff takes its name from the astronomer and writer Carl Sagan's observation that "we are star stuff", in the sense that many of the elements in our bodies - the iron in our blood, for instance - could only have been created by supernovas. Gary, who has presented the program for seven years, says it has a big following, with ratings peaks of more than 9 per cent nationally."

  3. Sharma, Mahesh (2010-12-02). "There but by the grace of the pods: podcasting". The Age. ProQuest 815110904.

     The article notes: "ABC radio show StarStuff has explained the age-old unknowns of the universe for more than 500 episodes but this milestone wouldn't have been reached without the modern phenomenon of podcasting. The program had been broadcast on ABC NewsRadio for years but a change in strategic direction two years ago forced StarStuff host and ABC broadcaster and journalist Stuart Gary to seek an alternative platform to continue reaching listeners. The ABC science and innovation unit stepped in, Gary says, and StarStuff was given new life as a podcast, a downloadable audio recording that can be played via MP3 players on computers and portable devices. ... More than 100 podcasts have been published as podcasts on the show's website, abc.net.au/starstuff, and Gary says the audience has actually grown since it went off the airwaves."

  4. Javes, Sue (2008-07-28). "Radio". The Sydney Morning Herald. ProQuest 364221019.

     The article notes: "The ABC has been bombarded with complaints following a decision by NewsRadio to scrap the long-running astronomy show StarStuff. Blogs have sprung up urging disappointed listeners to contact their member of Parliament in a bid to have the "uneducated and ill-informed" decision overturned. ABC radio talks boss Margaret Cassidy says it's a matter of prioritising resources. She says StarStuff presenter Stuart Gary is needed to work on the main news desk five days a week and the specialist program does not fit with the station's rolling news format. The bloggers argue that NewsRadio has no trouble running block programming when it comes to sport yet can't devote half an hour a week to scientific endeavour. A compromise of sorts has been reached. The show will be offered as a podcast by ABC Science Online at abc.net.au/science/feeds."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow StarStuff to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Good finds. I concur that 1 and 3 are examples of coverage. 2 is WP:PROMO in tone and should probably be avoided. 4 is just news and is probably not necessary to include per WP:DUE. This shifts the needle a bit, but I don't know if these are detailed enough to satisfy SIGCOV. Thanks. 11WB 💬 13:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The third source covers podcasting and equally Darren Osborne's podcast. So insufficient notable for me, but can be mentioned on ABC News (Australia) for the podcasting part. Delete. IgelRM (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the analysis. Regarding I concur that 1 and 3 are examples of coverage., I consider these two sources by themselves sufficient to meet the notability guideline. Combined with the other two not as strong (but still detailed sources), I think StarStuff clears the requirements. Cunard (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

They are examples of coverage, but not significant coverage, which is required for GNG. 11WB 💬 21:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hearts and minds (Iraq)

Hearts and minds (Iraq) (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 focuses on the application of winning hearts and minds, but tangentially in the Iraq context. This would fit better on the broader page on its applications throughout history. Longhornsg (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Military, Iraq, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. No reason for this to be a standalone. Intothatdarkness 13:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Winning hearts and minds#Usage with a new section dedicated to "Iraq" there. Segaton (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Brexitcast

Brexitcast (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 propose merging this article to Newscast (podcast) because I have found this merge proposal on the talk page for Newscast, this discussion will provide due process and a formal decision on that proposal as a template has never been used to formally propose a merger.

I personally oppose this proposal as per point one of WP:NOMERGE, it would make the target article very unwieldy. RogueScholar mentions technical details (such as both podcasts being in the same feed) mean that the articles should be merged, but I have never known that technical considerations should be made in these types of discussions, rather, they should be focused on the notability of content. Some parts of this article could be included in the Newscast article, but it would not be wise to merge the whole article as there is content exclusive to this iteration of the show. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Radio, Television, Politics, Internet, Europe, and United Kingdom. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: A merger of some kind seems sensible, as long as they're one and the same. I remember having a discussion about this at the time Brexitcast was replaced by Newscast, and whether a separate article was needed. I was advised they were two separate podcasts. However, there's an argument for Newscast being a continuation of its predecessor, because they have the same presenting team and format. The podcast was launched to provide analysis of the 2017 general election and titled Electioncast, becoming Brexitcast afterwards. Apart from a couple of special editions, Brexitcast stopped airing regularly after the UK left the European Union on 31 January 2020, but the format continued to air as a podcast, as well as a television programme in the same BBC One timeslot with Newscast. And basically, that format is a dive into the week's political events, which had been dominated by Brexit up to that point. I also seem to remember the podcast being retitled The Coronavirus Newscast or something similar to that for a while at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. So we have four separate names for what is arguably the same podcast, and two separate articles covering its history. Television and radio programmes have previously undergone name changes, the one that springs to mind being Loose Women, which was Live Talk for a time. But we don't have separate articles for Loose Women and Live Talk. Clearly, a straight cut and paste from Brexitcast to Newscast wouldn't be appropriate, but elements of the former could be merged into the latter to create a more comprehensive article covering both topics. Brexitcast would then become a redirect to the expanded article. I suppose it depends whether the BBC and other media regard the podcasts as separate entities as to whether we should do the same. This is Paul (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support merge. It's one podcast, it makes no sense to have two articles about it. That they periodically change the name to reflect the top ongoing news item is not a reason to have a separate article. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NOMERGE. I see no reason to force a merge here. We routinely have articles on individual season of a TV series. We split out articles all of the time in this manner. For size reasons it is better to just leave things as they are. It also allows for the Brexitcast page to focus content on the Brexit era. There are good editorial reasons to leave these seperate in terms of content focus.4meter4 (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Kenneth Baer

Kenneth Baer (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Has placed some op-eds, but is a mid-level political appointee and roving spokeman in U.S. politics. Provides cookie cutter quotes to news media on behalf of his clients. Lacks the WP:SIGCOV or impact to establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, England, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I was doing a search for sources and discovered that we are two degrees of separation, which isn't surprising because I was a Democratic committee person for over a decade. Therefore as is my practice I won't "vote" on this matter, and will trust the process. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Bearian This isn’t close enough to be a COI in my opinion Longhornsg (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Tell that to the random new users who have flamed me over the years. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

*Weak Keep Profile seems notable, have few notable news sources too, yet i want more editors to cast theiur vote to make the clarity.Rainfixer (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• This is a passing mention in an op-ed from 20 years ago. The other WaPo source is a photo. The other sources are a marriage announcement and a geneology website. None of these are WP:RS that establish WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete sources are OPEDs and not used for proving notability HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak Keep. While he may not meet WP:NJournalist, but the coverage generated by his published work shows enough depth to establish notability Brodska213 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• weak keep More than a few reviews for the "Reinventing Democrats:" book, , , , although the book might be more notable than the author. A redirect to the book perhaps might suffice? Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  The book may be notable per WP:NBOOK, but the author isn't. So we could delete the author page and have one for the book. Longhornsg (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - He is notable per WP:NAUTHOR and I think in general as well. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as we haven't kept anyone as notable for one book. His book might meet notability criteria, but he fails WP:NAUTHOR as well as WP:NJOURNALIST. DylanMReed (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep: Subject appears to meet the third criterion of WP:AUTHOR due to cofounding and editing Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. The sourcing on that article is itself suspect, with one of the five sources being the journal's own about page and two being articles by Baer himself, but that's another discussion that needs to be had first. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 16:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Pentagon rapid response operation

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Pentagon rapid response operation
• Articles for deletion/Pentagon rapid response operation (2nd nomination)

Pentagon rapid response operation (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)

WP:NOTNEWS. Short-lived media relations initiative within a government office that existed for only about five months two decades ago. Coverage consists primarily of contemporary reports announcing its creation, with no significant independent secondary coverage documenting lasting impact, historical importance, or broader notability. A brief mention in Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs would adequately cover any relevance, but a standalone article is not warranted based on RS. Longhornsg (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Military, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 00:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs per nom. A media relations unit that existed for roughly five months two decades ago, with coverage confined to its creation, fails WP:SUSTAINED and reads as WP:NOTNEWS. A couple of sentences at the parent article is the appropriate weight. Onatic (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

• Jasper Fitzhugh (via WP:PROD on 5 November 2025)
• Kingston Times (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2025)
• The Nashua Broadcaster (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2025)
• Ulster Publishing (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2025)
• Vermont Commons: Voices of Independence (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2025)
• Woodstock Times (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2025)
• Dunkirk Evening Observer (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2025)