Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media portrayals of Indigenous Australians


 * 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. PeaceNT (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Media portrayals of Indigenous Australians

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. It's natural to sympathise with the basic premise of this article but basically it's a non-neutral essay not a balanced encyclopedia article. Fails WP:OR - the author's first posting of this article states "pasting in an old term paper i wrote". Fails WP:SOAP because it's an opinion piece and lacks a detached and balanced analysis. andy (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is an essay. I would recommend, though, to push this AfD through a long time, and give the user at least a week or so (I've seen AfD's that went way longer than that) to get it into a decent article. It does appear as though the write is working to make it encyclopedic (at least that was stated in the initial edit comment), and there is the possibility of it being a satisfactory article. Considering that we have Pop culture impact articles throughout Wiki, among many other questionable pages, I think it's reasonable to allow the user a few more days of discussion here. There's no reason to rush the process and we can demonstrate our collective Good Faith by taking our time on this one. VigilancePrime (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not an essay. I suggest reading the article rather than thinking that just because the editor copied it from something xe wrote earlier it must be an essay.  It's a sourced start for an encyclopedia article on the subject of medial portrayals of Indigenous Australians.  AFD is not cleanup.  Please read Article development Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading this edit summary and this edit. You have a neutrality dispute with an article that cites two books and five academic journal articles discussing the exact subject at hand.  As  said, you are welcome to add more content if you find sources that disagree with the ones already cited.  But that is a matter of editing, not deletion.  Please read and familiarize yourself with our Editing policy and Deletion policy.  We don't delete articles because they are not yet perfect.  This article is not original research, since it is based upon sources that have discussed the subject &mdash; sources that have been cited by many other people, I noticed when checking them out.  It is verifiable.  Whether it is neutral or not is not a matter for AFD, since clearly the scope of the article is neutral.  Neutrality disputes should be solved by finding sources that present the opposing point of view, if they exist, and using them to improve the article.  AFD is not cleanup, and is not a big hammer that editors can substitute for actually finding sources and writing.  Keep.  Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (Speaking of big hammers, here I am.) Keep; the subject matter does indeed seem to be notable. POV does seem to be an issue here, but that's a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm the author of this article, and I think that it's possible it's not entirely balanced but should be kept nonetheless because it is notable and summarizes existing research. I wrote that I was pasting something I wrote earlier solely so others wouldn't suspect a copyvio when a finished, unformatted article was added.  When adding this, I strove to delete any of my own conclusions and leave only what other sources had said. It's possible other sources I haven't read or don't cite say something different (I wrote this for a college class maybe three or four years ago so I don't remember) but as it is it's sourced and notable, and is a good start for additional research. The appropriate cleanup tags are already on the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it does read like a summary of academic research (which a google scholar search reveals seems overwhelmingingly in line with the broad tone of this article), if a little essay-like in style. Perhaps a section on how the media themselves see their portrayal would help. But style or possible POV issues aren't reasons for deletion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   -- Bduke (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a notable subject back prior to settlement of Australia. Any issues with the article are for cleanup and associated tagging not deletion - Peripitus (Talk) 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic, it just needs improving so a larger perspective is gained rather than using the views of a small town newspaper editor to characterise mainstream media opinion. Mention of the role of the national broadcasters in turning negative perceptions around would be a big start not to mention coverage of persons such Noel Pearson and Tania Major, as well as sportspersons such as Michael Long and Anthony Mundine and artists such as Deborah Mailman.  Not all coverage is positive but they don't fit into the strait-jacket this article imposes.  This can be fixed, however and the article should be kept. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and revise as per suggestions above--Matilda talk 23:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Doesn't seem problematic, is a notable topic. Agree with suggestions made by others, particularly Mattinbgn. Orderinchaos 04:12, 9 January 2008 (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.