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. Sufficient sourcing has been found, however this does not preclude a merger if folks feel editorially it should be covered within History_of_CNN_(1980–2003) Star Mississippi 01:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CNN NewsStand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be an abstract branding that CNN has thrown around for various items, none of which are notable on their own. Sources already in the article barely mention it at all. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep so far; if not, Merge to History of CNN (1980–2003). To clarify some things: The subject isn't the NewsStand name itself — the recent reuse of the name for an airport shop, and the removal of the other names from the lede, makes it confusing. The actual subject of the article is single mandated project — a forced corporate synergy combination of Time Inc.'s various magazines and Warner's CNN — that was mostly rejected repeatedly by the audience, and finally killed off in 2001. There was a CNN & Time, a CNN & Fortune, and a CNN & Entertainment Weekly. (I should mention that I created the article in 2007 and I don't know why I only used one source, which only covers the "Valley of Death" debacle, not the overall project, which starts to look like I was engaging in WP:OR; I must not have been that experienced at that point.) This already seemed at the time (and still seems to me now) to be a major and expensive failure for CNN, like a years-long CNN+. I'm saying "weak keep" because I'm pretty sure sources on this, and the corporate insistence on rebranding it and pushing it after repeated failures, can be found with the right search terms. Maybe there would be coverage either by CNN's own media reporters (such as [1]) or Columbia Journalism Review? Some right off the bat that I found tonight that at least hint at the problems:

--Closeapple (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.