Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Churnalism

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Userfy. I feel that the userfy arguments are stronger. It may be that after a re-write to obtain consensus to move it back to an essay. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Churnalism


Concerns in WP:What Wikipedia is not#Personal essays ("[Do not use Wikipedia for] Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts", WP:Deletion policy ("Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"), WP:Neutral point of view ("which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources"), WP:No original research ("research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly"), WP:Verifibility and WP:Essays (latter which says An essay, as well as being useful, can potentially be a divisive means of espousing a point of view (WP:No original research includes essays as its scope). The Wikipedia community has historically tolerated a wide range of Wikipedia related subjects and viewpoints on user pages which suggests Wikipediaspace is not the place for POVs) and concerns about the page's integrity have been noted at Wikipedia talk:Churnalism which were not addressed, therefore still of relevant concern to the community. Previously, 2 now-banned paid users were contributors to this, therefore especially important in the cited policies above. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – This comes across as an I don't like it nomination. The page has been edited by several editors, so it is not a personal essay. Furthermore, the link in the nomination to WP:NOT refers to articles in main namespace, and is not applicable toward Essays. The page provides a balanced overview about the general topic, presenting objective, valid and useful information such as in its Determination and "Laundering" press releases sections, as well as in other areas. Also, the nominator has been following my contributions recently and nominating articles I have created for deletion, well beyond the possibility of it being a coincidence, so I sense some inherent bias per this from the start. North America1000 23:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is about collaborating so people are going to coincidence on pages. SwisterTwister   talk  23:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and, in all disclosure, I only know about this page because I had been told about it before (not because I had any personal motivations here, since I've never edited it; as it is, I review deletion pages daily too). Since one of the policies here is WP:Not, I read it and it says Wikipedia pages, including those in user space, are not so like several of our policies, it can be applied anywhere in content. We've accepted some essays before when they were unanimously used or served a good interest in the encyclopedia's goals, but I can't see that here. As for the "several editors here", a serious concern here is the fact, not one now-banned user but 2; one of them by a community discussion, therefore as by our WP:Banning policy, users who significantly contributed to something, shouldn't have the luxury of having their edits kept, even if they were not the primary author, and we've established this as a sensible basis at XfDs before. SwisterTwister   talk  23:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social networking service like Facebook or Twitter. You may not host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud on Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages, including those in user space, are not:"
 * Comment – The snippet directly above, "Wikipedia pages, including those in user space, are not" is incomplete and taken out of context . The full text and actual context is located at WP:NOTWEBHOST, which reads as:
 * "Personal web pages."
 * "File storage areas."
 * "Dating services."
 * "Memorials."
 * "Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia."
 * None of the points at WP:NOTWEBHOST are applicable to this Essay page at all . It's not a personal web page, storage area, or any of this, and it's not in the user namespace. North America1000 00:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The nomination makes a persuasive case in what our applied pages say, and I'll actually add my own take on this, since it would help contribute to the discussion here. The page claims "relevancy" to 3 AfDs by an anon IP's comments but this essay is, by the linked "what links here", noticeably unused; also, diffs are in the scope of WP:No original research and WP:Verifibility, and I'll also mention unsourced scientific theory about general news. Churnalism exists (AfD closed as Keep in 2009), is covered by various publishers and Template:Journalism lists it. The essay is unsourced in supporting its views on churnalism as facts. As always, any concerns about what our churnalism article says, can be opened at the talk page for the community's input.
 * A quote I found, here in the essay:
 * "It is possible that the term may be used as a reason at AfD discussions to dismiss any source that covers business and entrepreneurship" which is a somewhat different variation of now, and "It is possible that the term may be used as a reason at AfD discussions to dismiss any source that covers business and entrepreneurship" and "There has been a religious crusade against spam on Wikipedia lately that borders on mania. In the fervor to delete spam articles wherever they lie, we've started seeing editors who are using extra-sensory (and extra-policy) powers to detect PR in article sources, but are often providing no proof for such PR claims other than....hunches and personal opinion.", (violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:V), and also next onto "If a reliable source decides to fact check a press release and write a story about it, it then meets the definition of coming from a reliable source....It would be biased for them not to", "A problem is the current vogue that every article about a company is automatically spam as some sort of default, and that such articles must only be deleted instead of being copy edited to address concerns with promotionalism"
 * and the latter quotes WP:Alternative to deletion yet that page itself cites WP:NOT as a primary factor on article process, not ATD itself. To also quote WP:Essays again, it says Essay may be....deleted, if they are found to be problematic. WP:Policies and guidelines also notes about essays....found to contradict widespread consensus. This would parallel with what was recently added, unsourced and unverified, to the essay here:
 * "Compounding this matter, Wikipedians sometimes do not even bother to actually perform source searches or read the sources presented in articles and AfD discussions when determining notability, instead defaulting to an assumptive view that all of the sources are automatically PR-derived, regardless of actual source content and availability. It is alarming that this sometimes occurs in a "drive-by" !voting fashion, when users !vote in rapid succession in many AfD discussions, which can indicate that the sources were not actually examined. Additionally, some Wikipedians are against the very concept of company and company-related articles even existing on Wikipedia." (there's never been any evidence, either on a community talk page or noticeboard, that users are immediately "against the very concept of company and company-related articles even existing")
 * SwisterTwister  talk  00:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – The guideline and policy pages in bold above do not pertain to Essays. Also, it is unnecessary to cherry pick, copy and paste wall of text from the essay here; the content can be read by users on the page. North America1000 01:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 *  Keep Keep, but rewrite I am another of the editors who collaborated on Wikipedia:Churnalism. We took excellent care to follow the guidelines regarding personal essays on topics of interest to other Wikipedia editors. As none of the essay is in main namespace, and the essay has been freely edited by more than one Wikipedia editor, with discussion representing more than one point of view on the topic of the essay Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ's comment "The Wikipedia community has historically tolerated a wide range of Wikipedia related subjects and viewpoints on user pages which suggests Wikipediaspace is not the place for POVs)" does not apply to Wikipedia:Churnalism.
 * It's hard to take the complaint that essays have WP:POV issues seriously. Expressing editors' POVs is what Wikipedia essays are for. Placing a POV tag on a Wikipedia essay in the first place shows that someone doesn't understand the definition of "essay" or how essays work in Wikipedia.
 * Apart from that, parts of that essay express opposing points of view on the value of corporate press releases and industry publications which reproduce those press releases word for word. That shows that among those of us who collaborated on that article there is balance in presentation of issues in the article.
 * Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ seems to be confusing the requirements for Wikipedia articles and those for Wikipedia essays. I ask those of us who vote on this request for deletion to bear that in mind.
 * User:SwisterTwister has not presented any objective confirmation for his statement "We've accepted some essays before when they were unanimously used or served a good interest in the encyclopedia's goals, but I can't see that here."  User:SwisterTwister makes that statement with no proof it has any objective backing in our guidelines.
 * Then he asserts that the presence of content from two editors who have now been banned (for other things) argues against the validity of this essay:

"'a serious concern here is the fact, not one now-banned user but 2; one of them by a community discussion, therefore as by our WP:Banning policy, users who significantly contributed to something, shouldn't have the luxury of having their edits kept, even if they were not the primary author, and we've established this as a sensible basis at XfDs before.'"
 * If this line of argument carried a vote on an XfD before, it shouldn't have. The content of an essay ought to stand on its own merits.
 * We don't do Orwell's "non-person" trick from 1984 here and systematically delete every bit of content an editor who was banned for an unrelated issue created along with content that other people made in the same Wikipedia document. Tf that ever becomes a Wikipedia guideline, I'll propose that we change the name of Wikipedia to "The Ministry of Truth".
 * User:SwisterTwister's comments after that are almost all attacks on other wikipedia editors, some of which seem to violate the WP:WIAPA guideline. In contrast, I'm attempting to criticize behavior, not people. loupgarous (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't named any other users here thus I have made no "almost all attacks". I only agreed with the fact 2 now-banned users who had admitted to undisclosingly editing for pay. That's a known fact as by looking at the relevant user logs. I mentioned it because allowing contributions by someone who was undisclosed paid is relevant to a page's relevancy.  SwisterTwister   talk  01:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize for conflating the remarks (presumably by an undisclosed paid editor, favoring weighting of corporate press release material as reliable sources) with your own. However, the rest my criticisms of your voting to delete the entire article.  Obviously, we can't follow the standard Wikipedia guideline and consult the banned users before deleting the content they added to the essay.  That does not make the content by non-banned users less valuable, nor the banned editors' opinions less valid as part of a balanced discussion.
 * You still seem to be saying that essay content ought not to stand on its own merits, and are favoring the deletion of an entire essay based on the identity of two of the people who contributed to that essay. I actually argued against that content, but I think it's probably better for Wikipedia editors reading an essay on churnalism to be exposed to all sides of a line of reasoning on which sources are reliable and which are not.
 * Essays are important in Wikipedia because they allow editors to show their reasoning on why things ought to be done. For that, they need to express a point of view.  This article expressed several points of view, some of them diametrically opposed, but with their supporting reasoning on full display in a manner that likely wouldn't survive the consensus process used to define what goes in our encyclopedia articles.  The box at the top of the essay already warns readers that they are getting points of view, so they know this material is not a guideline or in Wikipedia's voice.  You seem to be saying that this precaution isn't enough and only essays with points of view and sources of which you approve are allowable.  Good luck with that one. loupgarous (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rewrite --> Delete. I think it should be kept, but it needs to be edited, made more focused, and simplified - so that it defines churnalism, how to spot it, and how to manage it when reviewing articles and the sources. Right now it seems to be a push-pull of verbiage from different soapboxes. The intro and "in a nutshell", for instance, really need work.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have removed the nutshell template (diff), as its content was outdated relative to present content in the Essay. Perhaps you could consider devising a new one? North America1000 01:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , I would be happy to help with "in a nutshell", which seems like it should have a short definition of what churnalism is and that it affects the reliability and independence of the information. It seems to make sense to wait a bit until there's a bit more input. Then, I'd be happy to draft something.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my vote to yours "Keep, but rewrite", but for slightly different reasons. Now that we have pretty much aired competing theories of what makes a source "Churnalism", we can distill it to the essence, as you suggest.  However, even the theories which I disagree with ought to be aired.  You are right that all of our contributions ought to be pared down to the fewest words needed to do the job. loupgarous (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , That makes sense. Perhaps there could be a section about differing viewpoints with succinct summary statements.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to delete based upon discussion on this page. A new balanced essay on Churnalism, in the tone of the WP article, would be better than a userspace article or keeping this article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Move to userspace This is advocacy for a particular point of view in evaluating reliable sources for notability. It is appropriate for user space, we have many such essays, and it is accepted that they can disagree with each other. I've written smaller mini-essays on this at various times, saying almost exactly the opposite. After this goes into user space, I may expand them into a similar essay, for it is perfectly reasonable that both  views should be presented.  It would  certainly be possible to rewrite this to include both viewpoints, but the result would be so different from the original as not to do it justice. I'd be glad to cooperate in writing such a page, but just as I do not want to elevate what I consider a  very far out partisan argument into a statement of a reasonably accepted  view, I do not want to interfere with the expression  of that view in a proper location.
 * One distinction between a essay in userspace and one in WP space is that one in WP space represents a summary of a reasonable alternative, not a detailed line -by line analysis of an argument for a particular position. The focus of this upon two specific disputed decisions is unlike all other WP space essays, which may refer to such decisions, but in summary, not rearguing the details.  I would not put my own view of this into WP space either--I'd employ userspace. I don't attempt to pretend that my arguments have some degree of general acceptance while they remain uncertain. Maybe I'm not aggressive enough.  DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm in agreement with the general point of this essay. I only found this because I felt bad that I recently voted keep to several articles that DGG nominated to delete, and was going through his recent edit history trying to find an AfD  vote where I could support him so he didn't think I was stalking and trying to sabotage his deletion statistics. Just yesterday I made a similar point at AfD that this article makes, defending sources from reputable third party sources used in articles that were accused of being pure press releases.  The point I tried to make is that there are thousands of press releases issued every day, yet only a small fraction are interesting enough for writers to cover them.  The bigger companies have PR departments or outside contract agencies that are able to develop relationships with the editors, making it easier for those companies to get their news published.  Smaller companies and startups may not have dedicated PR, instead dumping the task on a junior assistant, and so they have a harder time getting noticed - another reason why their coverage shouldn't be so quickly discounted when it is covered.  It all comes down to the reliability of the publication.  While due to budget or time constraints there might be a few cases where a lazy writer does a cut and paste from a press release, doesn't do original research, and it gets past his/her editor, I've found that more often than not, the sources I use for articles are pretty reliable. There are cases when company employees are invited to contribute on a subject of interest, but those COI instances are clearly identified in the byline, and I know better than to use them as sources.  Addressing DGG's comment above, I'm not familiar enough with where this type of info should go and how WP policies are set, but I'd like to see this info somewhere so it can become part of the site's DNA. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I know you aren't stalking me. My deletion statistics will always be relatively low, because I almost always work only on the borderline cases. However, I regret that I haven't  convinced you that notability is less critical than removing promotionalism. That's the real issue, not the degree of notability.  DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a fine line between promotional and notable - and I don't disagree that we may have different standards. I think I have empathy and while I may not always agree that something is promotional, I'm trying to get better at understanding which material triggers your concerns. Perhaps part of the disconnect is that borderline notable aspects about a company are added to get an article past NPP, and some lazy writers will violate WP:OVERCITE to fill up the references section while not bothering to extract new info, just to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I've avoided removing excessive citations during AfD for this reason, but once an article is patrolled, I edit away. [] [] TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  17:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll say that I acknowledge you may see potential in this, but as the delete votes say: There are serious WP:NPOV concerns including a biased preference to only such unsourced WP:V content such as claiming that AfD are underlooked or the quality of the articles also underlooked. Also, there are unsourced WP:V claims that there's a "crusade" against companies in general, and that's especially a policy-applicable concern, since like our pillars say, we are a neutral encyclopedia built on fundamental concepts. One in particular is the quote from WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic (note the emphasized all encyclopedia content'') and that's not the case here. For example, since someone else suggested Churnalism is in fact a valid subject, the nomination never objected this, but in fact the visibility of this essay differing what our article in Churnalism actually says. It's there that I especially agree with the nominator since there were quoted parts of the relevant policies. Although a user above stated that "as long as it's not anywhere else" it's not a violation, is still not in agreement in what WP:What Wikipedia is not actually says, since like WP:CSD, it applies anywhere in content and Wikipediaspace is no different. I also wanted to note the fact WP:NPOV says in its same lead: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus, so even if there are claims that individual consensus can affect its fate, the foundation would still in WP:NPOV's judgement. SwisterTwister   talk  20:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As I read this essay, its purpose is to raise awareness that new article creation has become more difficult because of a misunderstanding about what media coverage makes an entity notable. Since other article creators including myself also see this growing trend, I think it accomplishes its goal, especially after I made some edits to its tone. I acknowledge that you are in a difficult position.  The more forcefully you argue that there's not a crusade against media coverage, the more it makes it seem that there is. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  21:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – WP:NPOV does not pertain to Essays . At the WP:NPOV page, it states (bold emphasis mine). "These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles..."
 * – North America1000 20:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, the first sentence is visibly All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia with the later stated core content policies, determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. The highlighted piece above is only in the "Examples" section, it's not part of the overall lead which naturally says what the subject is about. The fact it mentions both material and content means anything information, not one specific area.
 * Also see the next pillar, WP:V, which says: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable (note the material, and not specifically "articles") and this same paragraph goes later to say the words any material and once again, in the neighboring section All content must be verifiable followed by burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material....Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. SwisterTwister   talk  20:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – " encyclopedic content " pertains to Main namespace and other areas of Wikipedia, but not to essays . Otherwise, every essay on Wikipedia could be deleted because they often represent diverse or subjective viewpoints. If people don't like the content of the page, they don't have to read it. It's an essay, which is described as "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." North America1000 21:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * But can content and material be interpreted differently if they're not only mentioned twice in the same section, but clear on that it's anything in general? As by Wiktionary, both words are the same, material and content. Surely, actually arguing about wording isn't going to change the policy's own meaning or how the policy should be interpreted entirely? SwisterTwister   talk  21:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The NPOV and WP:V policies I hyperlinked above, never say that at all, but also, you're not providing us a suggestion how we can amend the current WP:V concerns without the relevant sourcing; in fact the only times WP:NPOV and WP:V actually mention "Essays" is listing "user-authored essays" therefore not applicable or exchangeable. Surely, WP:V is a policy applied anywhere as I also cared to quote above. "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints" is actually not relevant here since WP:NPOV and WP:V take hold over the "Essays" guidelines even if users wanted to object since they're cemented-policies, meaning they can't be repealed. I certainly would reconsider my vote only if we could address both the WP:NPOV and WP:V. Next, no one ever suggested we delete all essays, but since our relevant policies on essays, in fact says "problematic material can be removed", it's moot; certainly, WP:OSE wouldn't apply since we could easily delete anything else found to be equally problematic. Also, nobody here at all ever said "They don't like [this]" so there's no evidence to back this, but instead, the delete votes have cited policies, an acceptable norm on all XfDs. Actually to take our policies a step further, our Terms of Use actually says: We encourage you to...to make edits and contributions aimed at furthering the mission of the shared Project which would inevitably compliment our WP:NPOV and WP:V on contents. SwisterTwister   talk  21:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems quite clearly to meet the definition at WP:ESSAY. VQuakr (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But that page you linked actually says "Essays are not for personal views or thoughts"? How is this any different? Also, what's your thoughts on the policy basis given above? SwisterTwister   talk  03:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – WP:ESSAY does not state "Essays are not for personal views or thoughts" anywhere on the page whatsoever. North America1000 15:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * See nomination above again, where it's not only quoted but the WP:What Wikipedia is not policy is given. A policy that still hasn't been refuted by anyone here. SwisterTwister   talk  16:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * because the editing history includes substantial contribution from multiple editors. "Personal" thoughts would be those pertaining to a single individual. VQuakr (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, 2 of them are now-banned (for paid editing) while then the only other 2 significant ones are still here. Next, the page was tagged as various tags by other users but they were only removed by the 2 significant people. That could hardly be called "substantial" or "multiple". SwisterTwister   talk  17:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Whatever - which in this case is most likely a keep . This is a totally worthless piece of writing, heavily expounding a particular point of view. If it is ever used as an example in any discussion it should be discounted out of hand. ESSAY clearly states "An essay, as well as being useful, can potentially be a divisive means of espousing a point of view" (emphasis added). Although, in this case, the essay is virtually useless, having such a virulent POV. I completely understand the impetus of the nomination, and want to agree with the delete votes, but based solely on policy, which is what these types of !votes should be based, this article shouldn't be deleted (which is vastly different than saying it should be kept). If Wikipedia wants to become a new Advertising Age, that would be a shame. Numerous articles can pass WP:GNG simply because they pay millions of dollars to advertising firms to get their names in print. To me, that's a different discussion meant for a different forum, although it does make discerning what qualifies for deletion under the WP:DEL4 criteria more difficult to ascertain.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's how it works. Any company that can afford to pay millions to get press coverage won't need a volunteer editors' help getting onto Wikipedia. TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  06:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What makes you think the editors are volunteers? And even if they are that doesn't over-ride the way WP judges notability, and the fact that companies pay to get their names out there. I know. I've seen it done literally hundreds of times.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 12:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. So let's circle back and make this about the quality of the sources and not the writers' motivations. All the more reason that this document is useful. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Move to user space -- This page is not suitable as a Wikipedia essay, in part because its premise appears to contradict Wikipedia’s own article on the topic (Churnalism), as well as common sense and good faith source analysis. Much of the language is highly partisan, as in: There has been a religious crusade against spam on Wikipedia lately that borders on mania and unresearched speculation, among others The intent seems to ascribe some sort of a motive to those voting Delete at AfD, and label them as “religious” and “manic” zealots. Not cool.
 * Separately, the WP:CRUSADE anchor is inappropriate. I’ve seen editors throw the words like “crusade” and “campaign” around, which generally borders on ad hominem arguments. Because I edit in a somewhat contentious area of WW2 history, I’ve been on the received end of such accusations (sample: “part of a larger crusade”). I admit to having been “triggered” a bit when I noticed this anchor :-).
 * In summary, this page is better off in user space, until such time as a balanced essay can be written. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I had hoped that a more balanced essay - similar in some ways to the Churnalism article - could be the result of "Keep, but rewrite", but I am having my doubts based upon the nature of some of the conversation on this page and the current essay's content. Moving this to user space and, separately, creating a new essay on Churnalism may be the best route to take.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – I have removed the WP:CRUSADE link from the page, which has been deleted. North America1000 11:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - This essay, in Wikipedia space, which belongs to the community, serves no obvious or useful purpose except to contain inconclusive ramblings. Is it advocating an approach to keeping or deleting articles?  No, it seems to be arguing with itself.  Some of its content could be preserved as history if the purpose were to illustrate the inconsistency of deletion discussions, but that doesn't seem to be the point.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - striking my !vote above. Upon further reflection, and after reading additional viewpoints, I'm changing to delete. Moving it to a user page would also be okay, but I see no value in this essay.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 22:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Churnalism is a significant phenomenon – that's why I started our article about it in mainspace. Someone tried to delete that too but it's still there.  Deletion is not a productive way of dealing with such notable topics.  It's appropriate for us to develop some guideline about this topic because it affects our work.  Essays are an appropriate first stage in this. Andrew D. (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , What I am hearing from a number of people is: 1) This particularly essay is not appropriate, particularly in WP space because it is not balanced (it's also rambling, unfocused and confusing, IMO), and 2) it needs to be rewritten in a tone similar to the Churnalism article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also "Deletion is not a productive way of dealing with such notable topics" is contrary to the discussion happening here and since there are multiple policies showing this page is in fact opposite of policy norm. SwisterTwister   talk  15:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What you're hearing from me is that the page should be kept for the reasons stated. Essays may take contradictory or particular positions such as: WP:There is a deadline; WP:There is no deadline; WP:The deadline is now.  People who don't like what this essay says are free to go write other essays.  None of them have any great force and so their existence is not a big deal. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, but Rewrite, Urgently. An important project topic. NB. Good essay adhere or strive to adhere to WP:NPOV, or co-exist in pairs with opposing essays. This one is unbalanced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But actually as the votes here have said the current essay only shows a one-sided POV from the understanding on only a specific POV, not neutral. SwisterTwister   talk  15:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – I have removed some content from the former A crusade? section that has been described as contentious in this discussion (diff, diff). North America1000 11:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Since the nomination quotes several controversial parts, this one part wouldn't nearly be enough especially since the entire Lead section also contains such sentences as: There has been a determined effort against spam on Wikipedia lately that borders on mania. In the fervor to delete company-related articles wherever they may be, we've started seeing editors who are using extra-sensory (and extra-policy) powers or then also: "current vogue in assuming that every article about a company is automatically spam as some sort of default, that all of the sources about a company are derived from PR and press releases as an absolute or also Oftentimes, legitimate news articles published by reliable sources are hosted on the publisher's website and a limited number of affiliate websites, as well as some unauthorized "copycat" websites, for which there is not WP:V source.
 * Since our policies say all material must be verified and neutral, this wouldn't be the case at all. SwisterTwister   talk  15:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – The content discussed directly above was in the fifth paragraph of the lead. Since some have considered this to be contentious, I have removed this content from the page (diff) . This makes the page less polarizing in viewpoint. Let's see what others think about this change; hopefully others who have contributed here will check-in. North America1000 20:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What's now been removed is letting allowing "the "churnalism hypothesis" appears to be unfalsifiable — it's defined in a way that would cover virtually all business news, so it's impossible to disprove. I'd suggest advocates of the term "churnalism" write an essay, maybe at WP:CHURNALISM, that clearly defines the term, and gives several examples of business news coverage that both is and is not "churnalism". That still wouldn't be Wikipedia policy, but at least it would be more than a cheap excuse to dismiss sources people don't like" to exist; at the same time, what's currently now in the article is still only unsourced assertions by WP:V. Once even the worst problematic parts are removed, all we have is a personal POV essay with no serious sourcing to back it. SwisterTwister   talk  21:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Userfy per DGG and the recent removal of WP:PRONLY by consensus at WP:ATA. Deletion being second preference to keeping in its current form if userfication isn't an option. 'This is a valid opinion to hold, but it shouldn't be written in Wikipedia's voice, which is what the WP: prefix implies. While we do have essays in project space that advocate for controversial or even minority opinions, we should strive not to have essays on issues that imply one widely held view on how to argue an AfD are wrong be in the voice of Wikipedia that project space implies. I don't think we should censor those views any more than I think my views of DGG's view on this topic should be censored, which is why userficiation makes the most sense. At the same time, the article as is currently written is not the prevailing sense on Wikipedia, and I do think it is inappropriate as a project-space essay to be used as an argument in an AfD. In that regards, if the options are between keeping and deleting, I favour deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, if this is userfied or deleted, please delete WP:PRONLY. We don't need something that sounds like an ATA redirect (because it was a former one briefly) pointing at a personal opinion essay. I really don't want another situation of people throwing around snarky redirect titles that have nothing to do with what policy actually says. We have enough of that with WP:SOFIXIT, which links Be bold, a page that has absolutely nothing to do with deletion policy. If the closing admin prefers an RfD for that, I'll do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – Regarding the notion of overt deletion, there sure are a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments herein. Maybe it's a good thing to have an essay that not everyone automatically "likes". North America1000 15:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Very good point, which is why I favour userfication. You are entitled to your views as much as I am to mine, and having it in userspace serves this purpose. My quasi-delete above is more on the basis that I don't think we should have what is a very niche viewpoint in regards to AfDs be used in project space in a way that would imply that it is widely accepted guidance like many project space essays are. I prefer that it be userfied, but if it isn't, I don't want my view to be used as a reason to keep an essay that I don't think should be in project space around. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – I'm fine with the notion of the page being userfied. North America1000 00:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userfy. This page needs a lot of work as it is really a mish-mash and rambles. I had to come back and read the latter sections (after the first) more than once. Compare this page with the three essays linked by Andrew D. WP:There is a deadline; WP:There is no deadline; WP:The deadline is now. These are coherent and much higher quality.
 * If this makes it way back out to the Wikipedia space, I think the name should be somewhat changed, because the first section is not a description or definition of churnalism. Rather, this section sets up a false equivalence between PR materials and authentic journalism, and succeeds in clouding the issue for the uniformed. It is authentic journalism that is necessary to have a properly functioning encyclopedia.


 * Also, this section seems to diminish the role of authentic journalism, as if journalists have nothing better to do but create stories from company PR notices fresh off the fax machine. To me it is apparent; if a company creates a stir, or comes through with a genuine societal improvement or a paradigm shift, journalists will do the leg work to cover it.


 * Press releases are self serving and try to promote what that organization thinks is worth covering and noticing. Supposedly, this view is frequently at variance with what journalists and their editors view as newsworthy per the art of journalism. But more and more, the banal material found in company notices is being used to make up for revenue and budget shortfalls - that is "churnalism" - not this essay.


 * Lastly, I say thanks to NA1000 for pruning out the most contentious material discovered up to this point. That is what community and collaboration is all about. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.