Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic Constraints on Media Freedom


 * 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.  Sandstein  04:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Economic Constraints on Media Freedom

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Essay-like article with a sprinkling of WP:SYNTH. Singularity42 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear readers and critics, this article defines economic constraints on media freedom (see first sentence) and names the most common threats to media freedom, found in the scientific literature (field of research: media politics; media economics). All the statements are based on the scientific literature. Why would this not be suitable for an encyclopedia? --NinaLanger (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Economic Constraints on Media Freedom is an important topic, which is worth to have its own article. The content is based on facts from scientific literature and not on personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsmkw (talk • contribs) 12:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * i dont get it. what's the matter with this article? i find it very interesting. just a few days ago i was discussing media freedom and the role of the economy with some friends. and today i found this wiki entry on google and nearly all our open questions and discussion points were answered. and i think, this is exactlly what wiki articles are there for... so i think this article is worth staying on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Color1011 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SYNTH.  ukexpat (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not for hosting unencyclopaedic essays containing truckloads of original research. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete of course. SYNTH/OR/other Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy "can we please be nicer to new editors?" Drmies (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy, then? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to be nice but I don't think we should hold off AFD just because an article was created by a new user, if that's what you're suggesting. Also sceptical about offering them the option to develop in userspace - in my view, FWIW, an article on this kind of vague discursive topic is kind of stuck from the start, and anyone trying to write and post it here doesn't get what an encyclopedia entry is meant to be about. Doing that would both offer false hope and more or less maintain WP being used as an essay host.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're happy to be nice, then please be nice! I don't necessarily disagree, but did anyone explain, even in only two sentences, why an essay is not OK? Their instructor (if this is an assignment) apparently couldn't be bothered to do it; we should be a little better than that. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In my original PROD, I linked to WP:NOTESSAY. I gave more detailed explanations when the issue was raised on my talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per essay, synth, OR and what Wikipedia is not.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

LauraHale: Of course, it is our primary purpose to improve Wikipedia: We decided to publish these entries on Wikipedia in accordance with our professor. It is true that this entry is part of the task in our seminar but it was not the only task. Before publishing, we have read the Wikipedia policy but we simply did not know that this article would be seen as synthesis or even original research. We did not conduct a study, we just read the academic literature. Our aim was to improve Wikipedia by publishing an entry which is based on reliable sources. I want to apologize to all wikipedians which feel that this article does not fulfill the criteria for this encyclopedia. --NinaLanger (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:TNT. No bias for possible recreation if done in compliance but article is not savable now. Not an issue of being nice to new users, as students who are forced to write because of classwork are fundamentally different than others as their first consideration is not improving Wikipedia.  Instructors need to be help students learn that in contributing for class, their primary goal is to improve Wikipedia by writing for its guidelines. This isn't the student's fault but the instructors. --LauraHale (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, NinaLanger. Actually, I think that an article of some sort about some subject like this might be useful on Wikipedia, but this article is not that one. ;-) Notability is not a problem - the article is well-sourced (good job on that, btw). But, please read WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:OPINION. And, if possible, have your professor read them too. ;-) Marikafragen (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2012 (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.