Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsmax TV


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While there was a good rationale provided for merging the article, the clear preponderance of keep !votes provide consensus to keep. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 17:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Newsmax TV

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nominating for deletion. This page probably should just be a redirect to Newsmax; it has been "under construction" for four years with very little valid, WP:RS information on the page and no active editors apparently engaged in discussions. Most of what is sourced is already reflected at Newsmax. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The network's distribution has only increased in the last year, along with both its notability and notoriety, and its profile has obviously increased in the last month. There's a major difference between what is seen on the website, and what is carried by the television network, and a WP:BEFORE would easily prove as such. I do certainly agree there's been more IP vandalism activity involving political sides arguing about its reporting style and verifiability, but that's something protection easily takes care of.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is an odd nomination. The article cites a recent New York Times article, "Newsmax courts Fox News viewers with election denialism" and a Washington Post article, "Newsmax has emerged as a landing spot for cable news personalities in need of a new home", both entirely about the organization's plans and business practices. These are among more than two dozen existing references that the nominator does not attempt to account for. This really does not make sense. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * as I mentioned in nomination, both of the sources you discuss are also used for very similar wording at the main Newsmax article. I do not see this article doing anything that the main is not, or providing anything sourced that the main article isn't already reflecting. Of the entire "Notable personalities" section, the only entry that is sourced is sourced to hermancain.com, which for obvious reasons is not WP:RS. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The nomination said that the article "has been "under construction" for four years with very little valid, WP:RS information on the page". This is simply not true. There are many RS that have been added in the last month or so: New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, Columbia Journalism Review, the Daily Beast, Vox, CNN, Vanity Fair, Fast Company, Variety. Now you're saying that the problem is that these sources are also used at the main Newsmax article, which is not relevant to the subject's notability. If you want to propose a merge, AfD is not the place to do that. Your statement that the "Notable personalities" section doesn't have enough citations is not relevant, per WP:ARTN. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well please point me to the location to propose a merge, then, since the last AFD I saw had people posting suggestions to merge. And I don't see how WP:ARTN justifies having an entire section or list-of-names that is unsourced, please explain the language you find there supporting your interpretation? IHateAccounts (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ARTN says that the current state of the article does not affect the notability of the subject. If one section of the page does not cite any sources, it does not detract from the extremely well-sourced article's notability. You can read about the merge process at WP:MERGE. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I was surprised to find that this legitimate, six year old article about a growing TV network was up for deletion. If it's a source problem, then fix the sources, but don't punish the article, and don't punish the readers who want to look at the article. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep AGree with User:Johnsmith2116] - it seems page may be another dirty-20202-politics victim by being nominated for deletion. Multiple, reliale resources are noted. I'd research further some of the claims as it does appear to be biased; will look for some additional balance to add.Star7924 (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The notability of the topic is very clearly defined by the sources in the article. Meets WP:GNG (and WP:BCAST). Raymie (t • c) 03:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the TV channel is sufficiently distinct from the website that it needs its own article. There is not a great deal of overlap in sourcing. Vexations (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Stunning deletion request. There is sufficient content and sourcing for separate article on a subject that meets WP:GNG. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 20:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a lefty, but as much as I wish this TV channel didn't exist, it does. It is notable. I could be easily convinced to !vote to merge it with the parent article, but deleting it is just too drastic. ◦ Trey Maturin 21:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Newsmax. In the modern age, it seems odd to cover Internet operations separately from TV, particularly in cases like these where neither article is so big that merging them would make an unwieldy sum. (All the more so when an unsourced laundry list of names is pruned.) The sources don't even really support the idea of a clean dividing line; for example, the Washington Post item linked above talks about their app and their YouTube channel. It's all one thing, and we should reflect that. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per excellent points made by XOR'easter. When you trim the section on "notable personalities" (which currently has only one inline citation) and pare down the rest of the (properly sourced) content down to the essentials (the section on terrestrial affiliates is completely unsourced), you have a few paragraphs that will easily merge into Newsmax. As XOR'easter has pointed out, it is unusual to continue treating different mediums of the same entity in a separate manner when everything today revolves around the Internet as the central medium. Laval (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say Merge but I think it's basically merged already. As I noted in my nomination, the talk page has had the "Under Construction" section, placed by AKA Casey Rollins, begging "Please do not delete this page! I am still working on it" since 20 October 2014 with little to no improvement. Further, upon reviewing the 25 sources on the page (which I did before nominating but I'll lay it all out here again):
 * 1) This article is already reflected at Newsmax. ("South Florida's Newsmax rides wave of interest...")
 * 2) The Sara Polsky article does not mention Newsmax in any way. I have no idea why anyone put it into the page.
 * 3) This specific article is not reflected at Newsmax, but an equivalent article from Politico on the DirecTV launch of Newsmax's channel is.
 * 4) Does not seem to be a WP:RS, and it's a dead link that reverts to the multichannel.com homepage.
 * 5) This article is already reflected at Newsmax. (""Newsmax has emerged as a landing spot for cable news personalities...")
 * 6) This article is already reflected at Newsmax. ("Newsmax hopes conservative anger...")
 * 7) This article is already reflected at Newsmax. ("The Next Ailes: Newsmax's Chris Ruddy ...")
 * 8) This is self-sourced to Newsmax.com and is not WP:RS. ("Dennis Michael Lynch Hosts New Show"...)
 * 9) This is to Mediaite, a "marginally reliable" source. ("Newsmax Host Taken Off the Air...")
 * 10) This is a good WP:RS, and the content is not yet reflected at Newsmax. It is already reflected at Dennis Michael Lynch. ("Newsmax Host Dennis Michael Lynch Is Pulled Off the Air...")
 * 11) This is sourced direct back to Newsmax's website, promotional content only. (Howie Carr)
 * 12) Notations on Spicer joining Newsmax are already reflected at Newsmax
 * 13) Notations on Greg Kelly at Newsmax are already reflected at Newsmax
 * 14) This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("Trump voters are flocking...")
 * 15) This article is already reflected at Newsmax (""Donald Trump attacks Fox News: 'They forgot the golden goose'")
 * 16) This article is already reflected at Newsmax (and is a duplicate of number 6). ("Newsmax hopes conservative anger...")
 * 17) This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("Newsmax could end up being the Fox News of the post-Trump era")
 * 18) This article is already reflected at Newsmax (and is a duplicate of number 14). ("Trump voters are flocking...")
 * 19) This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("Newsmax courts Fox News viewers with election denialism")
 * 20) This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("My two days watching Newsmax...")
 * 21) This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("The misinformation media machine...")
 * 22) This article is already reflected at Newsmax (and is again a duplicate of number 14). ("Trump voters are flocking...")
 * 23) This specific article is not reflected at Newsmax, but equivalent coverage of ratings by AdWeek is.
 * 24) This is sourced to hermancain.com and is laughably not WP:RS. (Calabrese)
 * 25) Once again, just promotional material. I don't see the point of citing to the Newsmax's website, it's not WP:RS. (Newsmax website)
 * Again, while I could say "merge", I nominated this article for deletion because the merging has basically already been done. There's literally only one decent WP:RS source whose content isn't already reflected at the main Newsmax page, and that ONE is only about a specific host leaving the network over editorial-control disputes. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing these additional and useful details. I just discovered that there is an article for Newsmax Media, which is also largely duplicating the same material on Newsmax and I have proposed merging the former to the latter. Laval (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's another one. It's really redundant and unhelpful to have three different articles for what is a singular entity. Thanks for nominating it. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Our articles on the website and the TV channel seem quite different, and neither is so short as to be dwarfed by the other, so I don't see merging. While they are connected, each seems independently notable. --GRuban (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am not in their demographic, let's just say, but there's no question that this station is notable and the article is distinct from the other. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as the TV station seems to be a distinct entity and we generally keep individual articles for a TV station. These articles contain information about ratings, broadcast history and notable programmes/anchors. There is also enough coverage specifically about the cable TV channel to have an article, , , (distinct from the Newsmax website). I think this is good enough to keep. Rather, what should be merged is Newsmax and Newsmax Media. I note that this merge proposal has already been made and is in progress, so this article can be kept.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.