Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Propaganda in the american media system


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda in the american media system
Original research. This is somebody's term paper. -- Curps 02:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously OR. Fan1967 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per WP:NOR Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (one hopes the term paper didn't get better than a C). Joe 03:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The article cites its sources, but per WP:NOR, "it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source." Also, it goes on too long for an encyclopedia article. Delete.  -- E lkman - (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete OR.--Phenz 04:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic!  ( T / C ) 04:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Hbackman 05:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this one's pretty obvious -- stillnotelf   has a talk page  05:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom abakharev 07:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Lankiveil 11:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete soapboxing. —This unsigned comment was added by Robin Johnson (talk • contribs).
 * Delete as definite original research. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 11:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. I'd describe it as original research, except it's not very original and shows no signs of actual research. ProhibitOnions 13:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ter e nce Ong 13:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research Triage 14:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. And I hope the paper gets no better than a D; it is possibly the longest paragraph that I've seen outside of James Joyce.  ergot 19:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's an effect of the way the author pasted the article. He/she didn't realize that an extra carriage return was needed to start a new paragraph, so in WP each section ended up as one paragraph. That could be cleaned up, but why bother? Fan1967 16:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete OR as per above. Chairman S.  Talk  11:32, 24 March 2006 (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.