Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative press (U.S. political left)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative press (U.S. political left)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD contested by. This is an indiscriminate list which simply seems to advertise/promote the media of a certain political ideology. The list is not supported by reliable sources, and neither is the inclusion/definition of many of the entries as either "alternative" or even "political left" - seems to be original research in that respect. GiantSnowman 09:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * merge together with Alternative press (U.S. political right), into a new list article List of U.S. alternative political publications (or similar title). This is essentially a list article, as is the corresponding "political right" article. --NSH001 (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Indiscriminate list which is only microscopically inclusive at the moment and would be massively overblown if fleshed out comprehensively — that is, assuming we can all come to some common understanding of what is and is not "alternative," which is unlikely. Just as a taste of how huge a proper list would be, here is English-language press of the Communist Party USA and here is Non-English press of the Communist Party USA. That's just the Communist Party, mind you, the Socialist Party had more than 500 newspapers itself, not starting to count magazines. Not to mention the Socialist Labor Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the New Left, every left wing splinter group, non-party immigrant radical publications, the anarchist movement, the syndicalist movement, radical union shop papers, non-"mainstream" liberal publications. We're talking probably 5,000 titles in this incomprehensible mishmash of a format, all told. I have sympathy for the concept here, compiling blue links across political tendencies, but this is not definable, non-completable, and of dubious utility. A "bad list," if you will. Carrite (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot about this one, too, here is Non-English press of the Socialist Party of America. Like I say, the total count of Socialist Party newspapers runs to more than 500. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Better done through categories. The current list relies on a single source which might even be a copyvio (not sure). It's not a bad idea, but I think if there were 4 or 5 sources that label the pub's "alternative press", and pick the top ones by some criteria (circulation), and then call it "Top alternative press publications", that would solve the sourcing and indiscriminate problem. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - See also, the deletion discussion for the very similar article: Articles for deletion/Alternative press (U.S. political right) (2nd nomination). Northamerica1000(talk) 07:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , surely it would have been better to wait for the outcome of the 'left wing' AFD to gauge community consensus? GiantSnowman 08:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I felt that it would be more functional and egalitarian for both articles to be discussed simultaneously. Otherwise, the U.S. political right article would essentially be receiving preferential treatment, allowed a "free pass" while qualifying for deletion in the exact same manner as this article. Also, the deletion rationale above applies equally to both articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What utter nonsense. GiantSnowman 09:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then why did you !vote at the other nomination? What utter nonsense? Whatever. I stand by my decision in this matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do I agree both topics are equally non-notable? Yes. Does it make sense to wait for the outcome of the first AFD before starting a second, to see if the community agrees/disagrees with me? Yes. That's why your "it would be more functional and egalitarian for both articles to be discussed simultaneously" comment is nonsense. GiantSnowman 09:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * People often group AfD discussions together about related articles as bundled nominations. My nomination of the "political right" article is actually quite similar to such, except that it's a separate discussion. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * comment It's clear from the discussion above that the list would have to be managed through the use of sub-lists. I don't think the potential size of the list is an argument for deletion if that is done. The criteria for inclusion can be decided by discussion on the list's talk page. Given the systemic bias inherent in U.S. mainstream media, I think it worth making the effort to produce a comprehensive list, an example of where Wikipedia can provide a useful service. --NSH001 (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - To the comment above about treating the right and left the same, I don't think that necessarily follows. The fundamental problem with this title for a list of the left press is size; the problem with this title for the right press is lack of definition of what constitutes "right." There might be a way to retitle so that only the current (rather than the historical) press is included that would result in a satisfactory list, I suppose that is possible. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggested a title at the top that makes no distinction between left and right, though admittedly that was prompted by my dislike of a parenthetical disambiguator that serves no disambiguation function. Size isn't a problem if it's dealt with through sub-lists. I'll have to think about the suggestion of restricting it to current publications, for instance what happens when a publication goes out of business in the future? --NSH001 (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - unmanageable list with unclear criteria that will likely be disruptively edit-warred over if someone with a strong POV gets their hands on it. Ansh666 19:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - what about the "Alternative media" articles? Left and Right. Ansh666 19:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The criteria for inclusions in this list are too unclear. How do we really know that all the things on here lacking articles truly qualify as part of the "political left". Anyway, the meaning of the term and the orientation of the paper changes over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2013 (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.