Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott of Sinclair Broadcasting Group

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 merge to Sinclair Broadcast Group. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott of Sinclair Broadcasting Group[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and seems to have been developed as an advertising vehicle to deliver readers to the boycott website which is the only external link. The entire topic of the Sinclair promos is found in three paragraphs at Sinclair Broadcast Group#2018 journalistic responsibility promos, yet this article is nearly three times as long in order to cover what seems to be a relatively minor fallout that would deserve at most a sentence or two in the main article section. If this was truly an NPOV endeavor, it would cover the entire topic and be titled more appropriately. As it is, it seems to be created in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and propagandize against this particular company. The section "Sinclair journalists" in particular seems to be be there only to cast aspersions against the company, and does not seem to be related to this "boycott" at all. Netoholic @ 11:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. The topic is highly important, with a huge bearing on U.S. politics, democracy, freedom of the press. There are plenty of reliable sources in the article as of this version (23 sources as of April 13 2018 and the list is growing). A "relatively minor fallout"? That's not what critics say, in what appears to be a serious propaganda effort to influence major swaths of the U.S. electorate. Prominent celebrities are boycotting Sinclair as a result such as Amy Schumer, plus numerous Democratic politicians. That said, I have no aversion to merging this material into the Sinclair article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tomwsulcer is heavily involved, having made major inflations of this article. -- Netoholic @ 19:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant to this discussion?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And according to WP policy, that means they can be involved in the AfD discussion all they want, they just can't close it. Booyahhayoob (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sinclair Broadcast Group; this topic has received significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources, but works better as a section within the parent article. Neutrality^talk 21:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or combine with the section regarding the 2018 Sinclair drama from company's WP page. Since the boycott is related to the promo controversy, it'd make sense to group the two together and make the boycott page a heading. Booyahhayoob (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sinclair Broadcast Group -- Whats new?^(talk) 10:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent article. This is a subtopic of the patent article and not notable outside of that context. There isn't so much information as to warrant a stand alone article. Springee (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is large enough to warrant it's own article. If it were to be merged with the Sinclair article, most of the important information that only applies to the boycott itself would be removed. Great Great Grandson (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE – blocked sock. Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sinclair Broadcast Group per What's new. Werehilly (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE – blocked sock. Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Once trimmed of POV, promotional content, recentism, etc., it would fit well in the main article. It will have more context there anyway. Deli nk (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.