Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media balance


 * 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 technically, speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1 (not even the nominator thinks the material should be deleted; the nominator's argument is for a redirect). This is grounds for a non-admin closure. I have also boldly redirected this title to Objectivity (journalism) in accordance with the consensus here.— S Marshall T/C 00:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)'''

Media balance
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article appears to be a hoax, as I detailed anonymously on the talk page: "The article itself is a complete mess. None of the sources whatsoever deal with the main point of the article, that the concept of balance was created by the BBC as a way to promote the Conservative party. None. The citation that was used to cite about the BBC's formation of balance did not appear to refer to the BBC's formation of balance at all, instead talking about the 2003 Iraq War and rallying against it. The article also have an out-of-place quote about American journalism, which is a cool quote, but one that already exist on a separate page, one dedicated to objectivity."

It is possible that indeed Balance was a term created by the BBC to promote the views of the Conservative Party, but as none of the sources actually address this point, I highly doubt it. I apologize for blanking the page before, I didn't know it was vandalism. My hope is that, by going through the process, we can figure out if this article is a hoax or not, and how best to proceed. I recommend deleting it and doing a redirect to Objectivity, a somewhat better article. ServantScope (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC) EDIT: Another thing to clarify, as to why I want a deletion rather than just deleting the BBC mention. If we delete the mention of BBC creating balance, all we have left is a quote that is already on the Objectivity page. Thus, the page would not really have much content, and thus it would be better to just redirect it to a page with content.--ServantScope (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Call to close this AfD It's gone - changed to a redirect to Objectivity (journalism). (Not by me...) Peridon (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not gone yet. I saw that I typed the title of the page wrongly. It's not "Balance", it's "Media balance". So I attempted to corrected it in the AFD template. I'm a new editor, so I apologize for this minor mistake.--ServantScope (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I see that Media Balance is a redirect over to Objectivity, but Media balance leads straight to the page that I want to delete. So, what do I do? I did another editing of the AFD.--ServantScope (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've redirected that one. On second thoughts (looking into the history), perhaps I shouldn't have. I thought an admin had done it, but the first redirect seems to have been done by two bots. I can understand bots redirecting 'b' to 'B', but not to a different title altogether. Ah well, if it's not right someone will sort it out. Peridon (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the redirection as articles should not be blanked (which I interpret to include replacing with a redirect) while the discussion is in progress. That said, I support the article being redirected to Objectivity (journalism) by the closing administrator or editor, after gauging consensus.  Intelligent  sium  23:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Objectivity (journalism). Maybe if information can be verified, it can be included in history section. snigbrook (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2010 (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.