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

Smiley News

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

Per the {{Multiple issues}} tagging at the top of this article, it seems to be promotional content written to promote the business of The Smiley Company, a company that licenses trademark rights for cartoon smiling faces. That topic (and Smiley) has been the subject of ongoing promotional editing. See the prior deletion discussions for two articles about the company's people: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin Loufrani and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Loufrani (3rd nomination). Both of those resulted in article deletion or redirecting. In fact all three of the previous discussions for the Nicolas Loufrani article resulted in deletions, and there was another speedy deletion after that. There have only been two significant edits of the Smiley News article since its creation in 2022. The first one was the initial created draft and the second was by an editor who previously recreated one of those deleted articles around May 2020, according to a notice on their user talk page. I have notified those two editors of this deletion discussion. There are no articles that link to this one, except in a hatnote of The Smiley Company, where there is a link to a merge proposal discussion at Talk:The Smiley Company#Proposed merger of Smiley News, where the promotional tone is noted by two other editors (who I also notified of this deletion discussion). I don't personally see anything worth merging into the other article, which has also suffered from promotional editing. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Initially, I proposed merging the Article Smiley News into The Smiley Company as a simpler, less blunt option. However, the article is largely promotional in nature and relies primarily on affiliated or semi-promotional sources, with little to no independent coverage. On that basis, deletion is the more appropriate outcome, like (WP:NOTPROMO , WP:INDEPENDENT).--- Bayoustarwatch (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mehran

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

Non-notable subject. I could not find reliable and secondary sources that are independent of the subject and have a reputation of fact-checking ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Covers.com

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

Notability is not inherited. While the parent company has some coverage, the website does not meet WP:NORG or WP:WEB. The references provided are either brief mentions, coverage of the parent company, or press releases. - The9Man ^Talk 07:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Sports. - The9Man ^Talk 07:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect altho not sure where to. Is Gracenote the parent company? Otherwise, weak delete. I think it might be notable, but not fully convinced. Metallurgist (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now Playing (magazine)

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

DePRODed by User:Kvng without any sources given to justify. No indication of standalone notability. While it was formerly a section in a different magazine, this particular DAB is (magazine) so it only applies to the separate magazine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Florida. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Popular culture. jolielover♥talk 05:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I would argue for a redirect to publisher etc but I cannot find a reliable source that mentions this magazine. IgelRM (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far Out (website)

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

Lacks notability, fails WP:GNG. The website/magazine has not won any awards, and has not been described in depth by uninvolved writers. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Popular culture, Websites, and England. jolielover♥talk 05:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Film, Music, Entertainment, and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inclined to agree with the nominator. It can be difficult sometimes to search online for publications about an online publication. However, I can't find anything, save for the one source already cited in the article which is not enough on its own. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whoever wrote the article used the used Rotten Tomatoes as a source to justify Far Out's notoriety, where as RT says only Monica Reid and Matthew Creith were approved. Matthew Creith even has an RT profile with a photo, a summary of where he worked and which critics associations he is associated with. In some cases RT approves the website and all the critics that are part of the staff, but this is not the case.Theys York (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we're conflating a publication being a reliable source and notability. Because of the nature of the source, the article has been rather aggressively pruned and the source recently declared unreliable. I think it's no coincidence that just as it's decided not to be a reliable source, it's proposed for AfD. Yes, the site does repackage content. However, it gives visibility to that content, often only in video form on YouTube. I view this site as akin to Bored Panda. Davidwbaker (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link where the community declared Far Out as an unreliable source ? @Davidwbaker:. Iennes (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Far Out was judged guilty of churnalism and circular sourcing which I would have termed plagiarism.

My first reaction to seeing this topic nominated for speedy deletion very recently was to go looking for reliable sources, which I thought I would be able to find. I was wrong, so I nominated it for deletion in the usual manner. I did find a Scientology magazine ranting about the bias on Far Out and how its founder blocked them on social media. The rag is Freedom (magazine) which is blacklisted on Wikipedia, which means I am not going to supply a link for your convenience. I found this Bru Times piece from India which looks a lot like churnalism; the other articles on that platform appear to be paid puffery for barely notable and non-notable people. A Modern Drummer page thanks Far Out for its coverage of Ringo Starr, which is not helping with notability because it does not contain in-depth coverage. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete

As mentioned at the talk page of the Far Out article, I gave various instances showing with diffs that Far Out outrageously mirrors the content of several Wikipedia music articles. This is unacceptable. It also means there is not a proper editor in chief at the helm. They copy / paste with poor rewording and even reproduce long quotes of interviews. The wiki article uses sources linking to their own website, this is a mess. It is a third rate source as it doesn't fit with our standard of editing : that wiki article about them is an anomaly. For all these reasons we should delete it. Iennes (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per lack of independent coverage. Svartner (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be an instant Delete as it fails WP:ORG. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 00:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There really isn't much of anything out there. There are a lot of hits for the term itself and many links from the website itself, but not really much else. There are a smattering of database type sites that list them, but otherwise the hits are typically non-reliable sources (churnalism sites, people linking to them on social media, etc). I didn't see anything that would firmly establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Baxter

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

Notability tag up for several years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw93d59 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, News media, and England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage in independent sources. Bearian (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any independent reliable s Sources, there is no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coro TV

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

Couldn't find no sources to support any of the statements of the article. Additionally, since it doesn't have a website, I'm not sure if it even exists. Nighfidelity (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Venezuela. Nighfidelity (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It cannot be overlooked that this has been tagged as unsourced since 2009. (It is also tagged as a potential GNG failure, but only since last month.) I have no opinion, though. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Coro, Venezuela: just like in Spanish. - E. Ux 19:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian influence operations in the UK

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

As it was previously tagged as, the article has essay-like and argumentative prose and should be moved to draftspace for incubation AlexBobCharles (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Politics. AlexBobCharles (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Crime, Terrorism, Iran, and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 06:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - contentious topic it's important to treat with care, and notwithstanding WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SYNTH concerns (e.g. in order to weaken and sow disunity within the United Kingdom in lead), currently there are not nearly enough incline citations to support some of the very strong claims in the article. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 11:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Similar reasoning to Epsilon.Prota but different conclusions. I don't think an article whose notability is based on an author's original conclusions, tabloid news, and the opinions of authors publicly opposed to the Iranian government is appropriate. Evidenced claims and allegations of Iranian espionage and interference in British affairs (and vice versa) can be covered in a neutral tone at Iran–United Kingdom relations. Yue🌙 21:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly, thank you AlexBobCharles for initating a discussion. I beg to differ with the above, my original conclusions or personal thoughts are unrelated to the article. Regarding Epsilon.Prota's statement, it is not my personal opinion but a reflection of reliable sources e.g Hall's New York Times interview.^[1] The citations support the statements. The text is not a synthesis or original thoughts, it entirely a reflection of the citation at the end of the relevant sentence or paragraph. This topic is clearly very notable and has raised multiple headlines over the years. Most recently the United Kingdom has placed Iran and Russia in the top tier of threats.^[2]^[3] Regarding the "enough incline citations to support some of the very strong claims in the article", please look at the list of references: among the sources quotes are reliable sources such as the Financial Times, the BBC, Reuters, the New York Times, The Times, The Guardian... Having read Wikipedia:Notability I will make clear that the article does conform to the standards set in this platform. The sources are secondary sources, Independent of the subject and provide verifiable evidence that this article is notable. The coverage of the issue is significant enough to warrant its own article since the scope of the article is too large and significant to appear soley in the Iran - UK relations page. This issue isn't temporary and has been ongoing for the last couple of years at least. Of course, I'd be happy to engage in proper discussion over wording of sentences. However I do not believe it is on its own enough of a reason to draft or delete the article. I'm attaching some direct quotes from sources.

Jonathan Hall told the New York Times, the United Kingdom - "Britain’s domestic intelligence agency, MI5, warned that Russia, Iran and China represented the biggest state threats to national security and were outsourcing espionage and sabotage operations designed to disrupt and destabilize Britain." , “Faces ‘Extraordinary’ Threat from Russian and Iranian Plots”. - This is based on the NYT article. "Mr. Hall’s warnings, and those of other senior British officials, stand in sharp contrast to the United States, where President Trump has said little about the efforts of Russia and Iran to destabilize American society, preferring instead to focus on diplomatic overtures to the two countries on issues like the war in Ukraine and Tehran’s nuclear program."

Reuters which reports on UK Security minister Dan Jarvis Iran statements: "Britain said on Tuesday it would require the Iranian state to register everything it does to exert political influence in the UK, subjecting Tehran to an elevated tier of scrutiny in light of what it said was increasingly aggressive activity." , "(Iran) has become increasingly emboldened, asserting itself more aggressively to advance their objectives and undermine ours. This is evidenced by the fact that direct action against UK targets has substantially increased over recent years," , "It is clear that these plots are a conscious strategy of the Iranian regime to stifle criticism through intimidation and fear. These threats are unacceptable. They must and will be defended against at every turn."

The Times: "“It’s clear that the IRGC is taking on an extremely active role in supporting Scottish independence across social media" "

The Times: "Iran has developed a “sophisticated network” across the UK to actively promote propaganda and “plant seeds of suspicion” against the British government, a report has claimed." , "Britain had become a “flashpoint” Iranian influence." , " Iran became the first country to be formally declared a national security threat to the UK." , "NUFDI said the centre was the “main artery of information between Tehran and London” and allowed the regime to “construct a multifaceted web of institutions in the UK, all subservient to the supreme leader of Iran”." , "...it was “planting seeds of suspicion (against their own British government)," , "...rather seek to export the Islamic Revolution to their new homeland”" , "...certainly to weaken support for Britain and the freedoms that we have in the West”" , "A government spokesman said: “Anything that seeks to undermine our democratic society is unacceptable. We consistently work closely with our partners to ensure the safety and security of the public."

Policy Exchange: "Finally, Iran poses a direct threat to British social cohesion. Iran has a network of active agents and friendly plants within the UK that it has used, and will employ in the future, to infiltrate British society. " , " Iran has sought to use astroturfed social media accounts in the past to support Scottish separatism"

There's more...

Thanks! MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ Dearden, Lizzie; Landler, Mark (2025-06-06). "U.K. Faces 'Extraordinary' Threat From Russian and Iranian Plots, Official Warns". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-06-28.
^ "UK launches Foreign Influence Registration Scheme". United Kingdom Government.
^ "Client Challenge". www.ft.com. Retrieved 2025-08-20.

Keep The above arguments have convinced me this article is worth keeping. It is supported by multiple high-quality and independent sources (NYT, Reuters, BBC, FT, The Times), establishing clear notability. While the prose may need copy-editing, these are presentation issues and not grounds for deletion. Razgura (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has a number of issues, but AfD isn't cleanup, and the sourcing is sufficient to warrant an article on the topic. Cortador (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Melika, but defintely needs work. Metallurgist (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rubayyat Jahan

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

Unreliable promotional sources, probably paid or press releases. No significant independent coverage. Rht bd (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, News media, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

16:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada News Today

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Another article with paid-for WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources and other puff pieces. If all of them are excluded, easily fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Moved out of draftspace by a new editor. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, India, and Karnataka. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject Kannada News Today meets the general notability guideline as it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Over the past months, the article has been consistently improved with verifiable references from established media, addressing concerns of reliability and neutrality.

The topic is a registered and notable news organization, and multiple third-party sources provide substantial coverage that goes beyond trivial mentions, satisfying the requirements of notability for organizations.

Any remaining issues regarding tone or sourcing can be addressed through normal editing rather than deletion, per WP:IMPROVEIT. Deletion would remove encyclopedic content that is verifiably notable and of relevance. Moulyags (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC) *Keep – The subject meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has received significant, independent coverage in reliable news outlets including The Times of India, Free Press Journal, Mid-Day, and Ahmedabad Mirror. It is a notable regional digital news platform in Karnataka, founded by an award-winning journalist, and has been recognized with regional awards. The article is verifiable with multiple independent sources and contributes to coverage of regional media in India, consistent with articles on other digital media outlets.Arman Shaquille Qio (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC) — Arman Shaquille Qio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked SOCK[reply]

They are obviously paid press releases, see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The majority of the given sources are press releases. Zuck28 (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zuck28 Thank you for your feedback. May I kindly ask in which angle you are 100% sure that the majority of the sources are press releases? For example, one of the references is regarding an MLA candidate recently taking charge, which is cited from an official government link along with an NDTV election report, as well as an additional third-party source.

I truly want to understand how you are identifying them as press releases, so that I can learn and contribute more accurately. As you mentioned, if the concern is mainly about the reliability of sources, I am open to improving the citations with stronger third-party coverage.

From my understanding, the topic is not only based on press announcements. The recognition received as a journalist and the establishment of an organization were covered in independent reporting as well. If I have missed better references or failed to present them properly, I am more than willing to correct that.

I genuinely appreciate guidance here, as my goal is to contribute in line with Wikipedia’s sourcing standards and not to create any issues. Moulyags (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject adds encyclopedic value as a notable regional news platform in Karnataka. Its independent coverage in multiple reliable sources and recognition with awards establish notability and verifiability under WP:GNG. Nira Omega (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC) — Nira Omega (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like this AfD is the target of canvassing. To limit that, I am EC-protecting the AfD. Hoping to get more views from experienced AfD regulars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Delete - due to the well-known issues with Indian media, it is hard to know which are and which are not sources that just regurgitate press releases on topics like this. So ignoring the newspapers, it seems to me that the strongest source is an award by a press association/club. Which itself seems to be in a very small category in a region of India. I could be wrong but I think we'd need to see stronger sources to show that this is a wiki-notable media org. JMWt (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A10 – new European architecture

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

Brief article on a short-lived niche magazine that appeared and disappeared without leaving a mark. The article was created by a single purpose user. gidonb (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Architecture, and Netherlands. gidonb (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Indexed by Design and Applied Arts Index, so it may pass WP:NJOURNAL Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NJOURNAL is an essay rather than a guideline Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not seeing the benefit to the encyclopedia deleting a journal that appears to be widely cited in academic publications. While WP:NJOURNAL may not be an official guideline, it is compelling.4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

[:72-1] Dearden, Lizzie; Landler, Mark (2025-06-06). "U.K. Faces 'Extraordinary' Threat From Russian and Iranian Plots, Official Warns". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-06-28.

[2] "UK launches Foreign Influence Registration Scheme". United Kingdom Government.

[3] "Client Challenge". www.ft.com. Retrieved 2025-08-20.

[1]

[2]

[3]