Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermarket tabloids in the United States


 * 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) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Supermarket tabloids in the United States

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

This piece is unreferenced, strongly biased, and has no apparent ability for expansion. It is of such low quality that while it should be merged, the material would need to be completely rewritten. Therefore I am nominating with intent to delete Ipatrol (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Very notable subject, there's even an entire book on the exact subject:  For enquiring minds: a cultural study of supermarket tabloids By S. Elizabeth Bird Univ. of Tennessee Press, 1992, ISBN 0870497294/ There's also a full chapter on them in a standard work, Hachten, W. A. (2000). The troubles of journalism: A critical look at what's right and wrong with the press. L  Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Took me 60 seconds on Google Books to find them. I suggest paying some attention to WP:BEFORE. It can be as easy to source an article as to nominate it for deletion without looking.DGG (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's non-notable, I'm saying it should be merged, but there is nothing to merge as the whole article needs a complete and thorough rewrite. Therefore, the page should just be deleted and a new section should be written at a place like Tabloid. This is GFDL possible as the new section would copy nothing from the old page.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Back in October, someone moved this from supermarket tabloid to this pretentious title, apparently thinking that it was a good idea. It wasn't.  Mandsford (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I agree that this would be best merged with Tabloid but it seems apparent that this is a merge proposal not a proper AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Tabloid. If it grows enough, it can be split off later. — Ched :   Yes?   ©  14:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally, an topic about which entire books have specifically been written is sufficient for an article of its own. AfD is not for merge discussions, in any case. DGG (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While AfD may not be the appropriate place for an editor to bring an article in the hopes that it is merged, it is the appropriate place for commentators to opine as to the appropriate place for content&mdash;i.e., own article, nowhere, another article. See Guide to deletion and in particular Guide to deletion. If you don't think this is the right way to go about things, try to build a consensus to change the guide. Bongo  matic  06:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Will reply on talk. Closing editor is free to interpret my !vote as a Keep — Ched :   Yes?  ©  05:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC) (the reply is on my talk, not this page's talk--DGG)


 * Keep The article covers a clearly notable topic, as demonstrated by book coverage and ample reporting in newspapers and magazines about the topic. While additional sourcing is needed, the article meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - valid stub, but move back to Supermarket tabloid Jenuk1985  |  Talk  20:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Major item under US culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe407 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move back to Supermarket tabloid. The concept is notable and can be established through sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 6 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.