Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politainment


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Politainment

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

What is Wikipedia NOT? Not a dictionary, is what. MyDog22 (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep we have well-developed articles on Edutainment and Infotainment, this article as well could be expanded to be more than just a dictionary definition. If anything, it needs some cleanup tags, not deletion.  The nominator appears to be a single-purpose account. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 11:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you accuse someone of being a single-purpose account based on their first edit? You want my first edit to have 2 purposes? MyDog22 (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep with option to reconsider. I agree with Rjanag that this article could well be expanded. Had it been tagged for the year since the last substantial edits, I would likely !vote differently. However, I'm willing to give this article a chance, tag it for expansion/improvement, and revisit this discussion in 3–6 months if improvement doesn't happen. —C.Fred (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If the International Encyclopedia of Communication can make an article out of it, our entry is salvagable too. We should give it at least a month to develop before we consider deletion on something that can be whipped into shape with a little effort. - Mgm|(talk) 22:20, 15 April 2009 (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.