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

Global Securities Lending

AfDs for this article:

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

Not able to find anything on 2i Media, GSL, Jon Hewson and Mark Latham apart from PR articles Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Finance. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CiberCuba

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

I originally G11'd this article. In addition to maintaining that this is pure advertising, I have been unable to find significant coverage of this media outlet. Source assessment:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?
[1]	NYT	NYT	brief mention about the site being made inaccessible in Cuba
[2]	based on outlet's reporting	BBC	crediting the outlet for reporting on the name of a person
[3]		deprecated; see WP:MARTI
[4]	USA Today	USA Today	does not mention the outlet
[5]	based on the outlet's reporting	NYT	crediting outlet with reporting on transport of dolphins
[6]	direct quotation of the outlet	BBC	brief mention in article about an ostrich meme
[7]	article subject's site
[8]	article subject's site
[9]	quotes an interview that the outlet did with Joe Biden	Washington Post	brief quotations from the outlet
[10]	quotes an interview that the outlet did with Joe Biden	France 24	brief quotations from the outlet
[11]	list of Marco Rubio's articles on outlet's website
[12]	television news story based on outlet's reporting and interview with its reporter	Telemundo
[13]	television news story based on outlet's reporting and interview with its reporter	Univision
[14]	article subject's site
[15]	English translation of SembraMedia article published by the Global Investigative Journalism Network	SembraMedia appears to be an advocacy organization and it's not clear how independent they are from funders.	borderline
[16]	Pulitzer Center		does not mention the outlet
[17]	News Whip	appears to be reliable	briefly mentions how many news interactions it has had
[18]	article subject's site
[19]	Cubadebate.cu	first image in the article looks like a conspiracy theory web	brief mention in a quote from another source
[20]	Fidel Castro fansite	Fidel Castro fansite

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Cuba. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with the nominator that the article has a promotional tone and structure. However, in reviewing the sources during New Page Review, I considered the Radio Marti story and the Global Investigative Journalism Network story to constitute SIGCOV, which is why I removed the notability tag. However, I did not realize that RSN had deprecated Radio Marti a couple months ago, which would obviously make this ineligible to contribute to GNG. As a result, I won't object to deletion here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 @Oaktree b@Voorts If Radio Martí was deprecated a few months ago, but the source you're referring to predates the deprecation, it doesn't necessarily mean that all articles from Radio Martí should automatically be deprecated? or bold yes? 2.137.154.172 (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's coverage here [21] and here [22], but it's mostly just briefly discussing the site. I'm not sure. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment voorts, Dclemens1971, Oaktree b - if Radio Marti was deprecated a few months ago, but the source is older, does that mean all the articles from that Radio should be deprecated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.154.172 (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Deprecation applies to the source no matter when it was written unless otherwise stated, not just after the date of depracation. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you looking at exactly on Radio Marti? Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP editor is referring to the fact that the Radio Marti article cited here pre-dates its deprecation. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was only depreciated as a source in April 2024 [23]. I would look for better sources if you have them; we could consider articles from before April 2024, but it wouldn't be the best choice. Meaning, we can use them, but in addition to other, better sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was deprecated in May when I closed the RfC deprecating it. The deprecation was not limited to May 2024 forward and my understanding is that deprecation is retroactive/applies to any of the source's articles unless otherwise stated (for example, the New York Post deprecation is limited to a particular time period), so we can't consider any articles from the source. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply for the fact that I can't find extensive coverage about this news source. I've found a few book references, but those are rather limited. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts The article in Pullitzer Center clearly defines the source as CiberCuba, there is a link to the history in Spanish in Cibercuba and the Cibercuba logo is displayed prominently in the headline. Reference [16] [24]https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/anguish-and-heartache-over-2015-building-collapse-havana-spanish

In this article from IWPR: [25]https://iwpr.net/global-voices/cubas-internet-blocked-pages-and-chinese-tech also mentioned CiberCuba as well as others.

This study from USENIX, mentions CiberCuba as one of sites censored in Cuba: [26]https://www.usenix.org/system/files/usenixsecurity24-ablove.pdf

The State Department, in its 2023 Report on International Religious Freedom in Cuba cites CiberCuba, in the Section III, Status of Societal Respect for Religious Freedom

The US Embassy in Cuba cites CiberCuba (twice) in its report 2020: Informe de los Derechos Humanos – Cuba: [27]https://cu.usembassy.gov/es/embassy/official-reports/hrr-2020/

There are more references, but I do not know if this is the right place to send this. Lockincuba (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about whether CiberCuba should have its own Wikipedia article under the guideline for companies. Specifically, this discussion is about whether there has been in-depth coverage of CiberCuba in independent, secondary, and reliable sources. Merely being cited by another source of briefly mentioned by that source does not qualify.

I see that this is your first post on Wikipedia. How did you learn about this discussion? voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this "delete" dicussion in the top of Cibercuba wikipedia page.

I appreciate your answer with a link to "Notability", I see your point.

My answer were more in the sense to complete the table that is posted above in this disscussion, and the issues cited there.

I do not know if there are in depth articles about Cibercuba. I believe tha a local media that is widely cited (even in major international outlets or GOV sites) or even in Wikipedia (hundreds of references in Wikipedia point to Cibercuba both in english and spanish), and consistently have a large audience (of cubans or related to Cuba) is notable, and deserves a place in Wikipedia.

I know this is not a typical source but you could see how Cibercuba compares to other media: [28]https://www.similarweb.com/es/website/cibercuba.com/competitors/

Sorry if it is not what you were asking. Lockincuba (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this: [29]https://gijn.org/stories/14-independent-news-sites-changing-cuban-journalism/ , it is not just about Cibercuba, but it provides some information about them. Lockincuba (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe tha a local media that is widely cited (even in major international outlets or GOV sites) or even in Wikipedia (hundreds of references in Wikipedia point to Cibercuba both in english and spanish), and consistently have a large audience (of cubans or related to Cuba) is notable, and deserves a place in Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, "notability" has a specific meaning, that a topic has received in depth coverage. Being cited by Wikipedia or other sources does not establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is really interesting this Notability thing. I just found this guide Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability, which give us a slighty different approach to a news site like Cibercuba and specificcally address the issue at the core of this discussion, and I quote:

"Newspapers can have a significant impact on the areas they serve, and in representing those areas to the wider world. Because its impact may be felt over a long period of time, a newspaper may be very significant, without attracting the kind of general review in other publications that would most handily fulfill Wikipedia's general notability guideline.... Additionally, while newspapers and magazines may review and critique other works of non-fiction (books, documentaries, scholarly works) it is not customary for newspapers themselves to receive the sort of reviews and critiques that often inform notability in other non-fiction realms."

Although there are some points to consideer that are not available about Cibercuba, being and independent (censored) organization in Cuba, there are specific points that are relevant to them, among them:

- It is referred to in one or more strong reliable sources as the newspaper of record for a certain locale, in the reputational (i.e., subjective) sense.

- Its content is or has been frequently syndicated or republished in other reliable sources

- Its articles are repeatedly cited (or its scoops frequently credited) by other reliable sources

In any case I also found some articles in other media that gives specific coveraga to issues where Cibercuba team were the actual news:

[30]https://www.14ymedio.com/internacional/mariela-castro-reporteros-conferencia-espana_1_1052659.html

[31]https://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/america-latina/cuba-es/article222703500.html

[32]https://cpj.org/2020/01/cuban-reporter-iliana-hernandez-charged-with-illeg/

[33]https://www.14ymedio.com/cuba/ayuda-matthew-cuba-baracoa-damnificados_1_1060447.html

[34]https://www.diariolasamericas.com/cultura/artistas-celebran-aniversario-cibercubaen-miami-n4126518

[35]https://www.americateve.com/exitosos-emprendedores-cubanos-quieren-abrir-oficinas-cuba-n885575

I even found a Master thesis in an Spain university that it is focused in compare Cibercuba and Cubadebate (one official/goverment funded news organization):

Communication of risk and crisis in the digital press from the informative treatment: A study of the fire in the largest fuel depot in Cuba in the Cubadebate and Cibercuba media

[36]https://idus.us.es/bitstream/handle/11441/155643/TFMCyC_comunicacionderiesgo.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Hope this will help the "case" of Cibercuba deserving a place in the Wikipedia. I truly believe it belong here.

Thanks Lockincuba (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the sources you shared establish notability under the notability guideline for corporations. The WikiProject Newspapers essay on notability that you cited has not gained consensus in the community. here is my assessment of the new sources:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
[37]	14ymedio	It appears that most sources talk about the outlet in terms of how it has been dealt with by the Castro government; there's no clear editorial standards on their website		article is about the publication's staff being kicked out of an event
[38]	El Nuevo Herald			article is about the publication's staff being kicked out of an event
[39]	Committee to Protect Journalists statement advocating for dropping charges against CiberCuba reporter	advocacy organization
[40]	14ymedio post that clearly takes a side on a political issue and is aligned with CiberCuba	It appears that most sources talk about the outlet in terms of how it has been dealt with by the Castro government; there's no clear editorial standards on their website	brief mention about Change.org petition and censorship
[41]	Diario Las Américas article that appears to largely rely upon interviews/information obtained from CiberCuba journalists			article is about the publication's third birthday event
[42]	América TeVé article that recounts a panel talk where a CiberCuba editor spoke
[43]		master's theses are not reliable sources

Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Even if there is not consensus the page was keep there, linked and it express an issue common to all news organizacions: "it is not customary for newspapers themselves to receive the sort of reviews and critiques that often inform notability in other non-fiction realms, therefore I believe should be taken into account.

I found some precense of CiberCuba in TV with interviews:

- Interview of the TV program of America Teve dedicated in exclusive to some espionage documents revealed by Cibercuba, with two of their journalists: [44]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mf6xo3z9iI

- Another interview of a Cibercuba journalist about corruption in a Cuban medical organization: [45]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCzzadyr5l8&t=49s

I found some coverage in the officialist media of the cuban regime to criticize Cibercuba work. There are articles in .cu, domains (which are all official cuban organizations), tryong to discredit Cibercuba work. Are those critics notable coverage?

I tried to replicate your tablewith the references that were not included, but it did not work:

| GIJN || Yes || Yes || Yes || ? || ?

|-

| IWPR || Yes || Yes || Yes || ? || ?

|-

| Usenix || Yes || No || No || ? || ?

|-

| U.S. Department of State || Yes || Yes|| No || ? || ?

|-

| The US Embassy in Cuba || Yes || Yes || No || ? || ?

|} Lockincuba (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is not customary for newspapers themselves to receive the sort of reviews and critiques that often inform notability in other non-fiction realms This is the opinion of some people in the WikiProject that wrote that essay, and it's an opinion that I happen to disagree with. Notable newspapers are regularly written about in nonfiction books, magazines, other newspapers, etc. Relying on another newspaper's reporting or interviewing its journalists about a story or reporting on a story that the outlet broke are not, however, secondary, independent, reliable sources. Additionally, the US embassy, the Cuban government, and official Cuban media/outlets loyal to the Cuban state are not reliable sources. Reliable sources are sources with a reputation for fact checking that have editorial guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage and if Ecured exists, it is an unreliable encyclopedia because this alternative and very relevant dissident media cannot exist in being supervisors of the Cuban dictatorship. My position is to maintain. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Paul Ingles (via WP:PROD on 22 January 2024)