Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postmedia and its Digital Reinvention
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 delete. –MuZemike 23:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Postmedia and its Digital Reinvention
- Postmedia and its Digital Reinvention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Huge essay. Good content should be merged to
Postmedia, the parent article, which is barely a stub. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- Speedy Keep per WP:SK "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as ... merging". Warden (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - this article is part of an educational project. The author is a new Wikipedian and a university student. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per OR and NOTESSAY, just as above. Again, in spite of it's many fine qualities as an essay, it isn't appropriate content for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per OR and NOTESSAY; if there's any content in here that's suitable for an encyclopedia, then merge it into Postmedia Network. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wouldn't it be a good idea if students on this kind of project were advised to start by finding a redlink.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yes, it's obvious original research and painfully slanted. This actually made sense in parts, which puts it a cut above the prose that's usually found in these things. It actually contains a kernel of information, even if it currently reads like Postmedia News and Postmedia Network are notable businesses with significant impacts on history and culture, though apparently not technology yet. The name of the business combined with the title makes this give a very bad first impression. ("Postmedia?" MEGO!) I certainly wouldn't mind seeing this userfied. Its sources and a bit of its text could eventually be used to improve real articles. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy The article's creator is a member of Wikpiedia Ambassadors. I don't believe this article belongs at AfD. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This has been brought to the attention of ANI since it's the third article from this class to come to AfD. PaintedCarpet (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. there may be some usable content, but from the title onward there are problems with Essay form. Point of View and Original research.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy - per User:PaintedCarpet. ukexpat (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Close AFD and let the merge discussion continue elsewhere. There was a merge tag placed on the article at the time this was nominated to AFD. [1] An article should never be nominated for deletion its first day out. Discuss what's wrong with it on the talk page, before trying to delete it. Dream Focus 21:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Userfy per WP:OR. Being part of educational project is not a free pass to put up unencyclopedic articles. The teachers running this project deserve to be trouted for not understanding the medium before they waded in with others following them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the talk) 03:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, delete. And while I acknowledge this is part of an educational project, it should probably not be userfied, since it has no encyclopedic potential per its very nature (like a lot of the articles that are part of this educational project). CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and do not userfy. We are not a ]
- 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.