This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers
I had thought the CJR article itself would've brought it over the bar of notability. As it stands, the independent sources which make more than a passing mention of Ground News that are cited in the article are:
Review by College & Research Libraries News
CJR analysis
Bram 2024 study
The rest are passing mentions but provide some useful facts for citation. If these are not enough, then I will retry to find further sources. ―Howard • 🌽3321:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
more sources are always better and in my opinion just one or two more articles where it is the primary focus, enough for it to be an enyclopedic entry about the site, would make me say its ready DarmaniLink (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
meets the bar for me, now that i looked more closely at it.personally, would like to trim some of the studies that do only a passing reference to ground news, and keep it focused. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
i'm looking at from the perspective of "would it survive if it was nominated for deletion again?"
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Acc to cjr: " It aggregates articles from more than forty thousand free and subscription outlets, then uses AI to publish a daily average of about thirty thousand summaries of news events from these articles. ". AI use is not mentioned in the article. It's important, because in contrast, AllSides' (competitor) aggregates are is written by human acc to the same source.
described as Lateral reading (Standford, used by fact checkers ) tool, from the way GN works and presents information and the former source's explanatin about lateral reading source [2] checks out
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=icon}
