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. 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:
Purge page cache watch

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

News media

Kodheyo

Kodheyo (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)

Former Ugandan newspaper, now defunct, that was in print for only 1 year. Sources do not support notability. Fails GNG and WP:NNEWSPAPER Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kjersti Flaa

Kjersti Flaa (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)

Subject has not received multiple, independently published secondary sources about her and does not meet the GNG. Reporting largely concerns a few things:

  • The subject's interviews of celebrities. These are not independent of the subject and cannot substantiate her notability.
  • The subject's unsuccessful legal action against the Hollywood Foreign Press Association for not making her a member.
  • Awards from organisations for interviews. These were awarded by the LA Press Club (a wordpress site).

These do not constitute sustained, in-depth coverage of the subject.

After searching for further sources, I cannot find anything to substantiate that the subject has received in-depth, sustained coverage for sources. A controversy she was a part of was notable.

If you remove information from this article that is not explicitly about the subject, there are two sources remaining. Both are about the controversy related to the above film. Recommend deleting this article and merging any useful information to each parent article. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm about 60% delete on this one. She is verging on having notability but I can't quite justify a keep. She is the subject of several articles by NY Times, Hollywood Reporter and others, but they are primarily based on the Blake Lively drama. I also can't help but notice that the page was created by User:PaulPachad who was later banned for COI, but there is no trail as to what happened or who was funding the account, and there is an active PR battle going on. I can't tell what's real here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's WP:BEFORE;' no prejudice to recreation by an editor in good standing who is not either a SOCK or up to their ears in COI, which seems to be the sole editorship at the moment. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will highlight that the subject made a video about her Wikipedia article. I expect the subject's fans to show up at this AfD in the near future; they have already appeared on the article's Talk (which has a staggering 2000 views in past 30 days). I believe this article will primarily serve as a battleground for competing views of celebrity drama. I would oppose recreation by editors based on WP:TOOSOON. Subject is an influencer and may become more notable in the future, but right now sustained, in-depth coverage of Flaa simply doesn't exist. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your or my opposition is irrelevant. In any case, "in good standing" addresses your fear. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is staggering. Of course, different countries are involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3 629 comments to that video though, that's impressive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have listed many articles and the subject is mentioned in them, but they are primarily about the drama. There is no sustained coverage of this subject. Reviewing what you have provided:
  • (Variety, 2020) is about her lawsuit (belongs on HFPA).
  • (NYT, 2021) and (The Times, 2021) are about the lawsuit, as above.
  • (Nettavisen, 2023), I do not speak Norwegian but the headline translates as "Norwegian Kjersti takes a fierce stand against Hollywood: "People are cowards"".
  • (NYT, 2024) is an interview with Anne Hathaway and Blake Lively.
  • (The Times, 2024) is about her interview with Anne Hathaway.
  • (Variety, 2024) is about her interview with Lively and Baldoni, and the headline describes her as "a journalist who went viral denies being part [...] of smear campaign", and is again about the dispute, not the subject.
  • (People, 2024) is about Blake Lively.
  • (The Cut, 2024) is more movie drama content.
  • (Hollywood Reporter, 2025) is more movie drama content, and frames the subject as "a journalist caught in the crossfire of" it.
  • (Forbes, 2025) is called "Here's what Blake Lively alleges against Justin Baldoni".
— ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the subject is mentioned in them, for example the first listed states in part "Kjersti Flaa is used to asking questions. She writes celebrity profiles for Norwegian magazines and does entertainment interviews for TV2’s “God Kveld Norge” (“Good Evening Norway”) as well as her own YouTube channel. But on Monday, she became the story." There's more in the others, perhaps particularly the 2024 NYT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more for the list, 2020, [12], Dagens Næringsliv. And one more from 2020, [13], LA Times. It's about the lawsuit, but there is stuff about her in there too. [14], 2019, Budstikka, I can't access, perhaps some passing Norwegian can tell us about it. It's local, but local is not nothing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are acknowledging that she isn't the primary subject of the coverage ("there is stuff in there about her"), which IMO is enough to say she fails GNG. One day maybe; right now WP:TOOSOON. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find this that's about the lawsuit she started, that can't be in any way relevant to this afd view a bit odd, and you seem to apply it to stuff like [15] as well, but we'll see what the closer does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIGCOV, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. (This is not to be taken as a !vote in any direction.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just edit-conflicted with you adding exactly that quote. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jinx! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fools seldom disagree.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, their website may be Wordpress, but Los Angeles Press Club has a WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- if we saw coverage of a novel that included discussion of the author's situation and their motivations for writing the book, we would consider that a sign of notability; it is both direct coverage of them and to a greater degree, coverage of their work. That would seem to me to apply to lawsuits as well; our sources are covering her actions and their impact, and in the effort are covering her situation and motivation. The coverage of the interview foofaraw keeps this from being a WP:BLP1E matter. This is not an out-of-the-ballpark hit (there are biographies we should not have and biographies we fail as an encyclopedia if we don't have, but this is part of the vast "meh" in-between), but it crosses that keep line for me. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteKeep. I'd say it's a little WP:TOOSOON to declare her notable enough for a Wikipedia page. She's notable, but just barely. There's not much to say about her. Sourcing provided by @Gråbergs Gråa Sång changed my mind. Meets GNG. Enough info to keep.(Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 17:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Acer-the-Protogen: Notability is not a moveable scale; a topic is either notable, or not. So barely notable is, in fact, still notable... Actually I'm likely to adjust my above-expressed opinion, following Gråbergs Gråa Sång's sourcing (btw, any chance of adding them to the article?), while NatGertler also argues perspicaciously. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You make a great point. I struggle with understanding certain parts of Wikipedia policies as a result of my ASD, and it's very helpful when someone points these things out. Thank you. That being said, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång does put forward a good deal of sources. On second thought, I will change my AfD to keep as well. :) (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 14:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some, some was there already, more can be added if relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Acer-the-Protogen: For future AfDs, I recommend reading the notability policy more deeply; "[an editor has] put forward a good deal of sources" might not be seen by other editors as a meaningful engagement with policy. I recommend reviewing Wikipedia's journalist-specific notability guidelines and deciding how the subject meets these. Thank you. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Journalists are, of course, not immunized from achieving notability through other means appropriately covered in our the general notability guidelines, where the coverage and not just the achievements are weighed heavily. Putting forth "a good deal of sources" does at least lend to that direction, and denying that might not be seen as "meaningful engagement with policy". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't miss the
"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."
part of that guideline. If GNG is considered met, additional criteria are moot. Specific notability guidelines are generally a kind of second chance when GNG isn't met. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Libero International

Libero International (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)

When I stumbled upon this article, I was surprised to see its only citation was to a Libcom.org archive of the journal's issues, rather than a clearly reliable secondary source. I then tried looking into the journal, searching for information about it on Google Scholar, but I found a dearth of coverage.[17] The majority of the Google Scholar results are false positives, and the few that do mention Libero International are either citing one of its articles (such as the external-linked "Bakunin in Japan" or "Anarchism and the May 4th Movement") or give it a passing mention. I only found one source that told me what this journal was, and it was a wee paragraph in the "Word To Our Readers" column in Libertarian Review.[18] Even that one doesn't give much to go off.

As it appears this subject lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources, I am proposing this article for deletion. Although as an alternative to deletion, this could be redirected to Centre International de Recherches sur l'Anarchisme (the parent organisation of the publishers behind the journal) and any relevant information merged into that. Grnrchst (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Deletion_sorting%2FNews_media
No tags for this post.