Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Slime Journalism

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 redirect to Hack writer. And possibly merge content from history. Sandstein 14:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Slime Journalism[edit]

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

An essay built around a neologism used in a few news articles. No indication that anyone else, really, has noticed or is using this term. Calton | Talk 04:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it possible that some information about the term could be merged into the article for yellow journalism since the name of this does refer to that term, if there's enough sourcing to justify this? Since the class is still ongoing it may also be a good idea to send this to the student's userspace (since this is part of a class project) so they can work on improving this, if there's consensus to delete without any merge. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per WP:CHEAP. This exists - my old friend Regina Calcaterra was a victim of this crap - but I'm not sure the concept is well known, or that well documented. Bearian (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I don't think that Yellow journalism is the best target, since these appear to be two different concepts. LocalLabs (a redirect of Journatic) may be a better target, where the content from this article could be used to create a "Reception" section. I'd say, Redirect ~~to LocalLabs &~~ pick up anything useful from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hack writer seems like a fine target for a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (changing iVote, see below) I think the academic journal articleand the article form the Poynter Institute covere this form of slimy journalism in sufficient detail to pass WP:NEO. And that keep is better than a redirect to LocalLabs which Poynter characterizes as a subspecies of pink slime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some form of this, even renamed or merged. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge (selectively) to hack writer, old time term for this precise phenomenon. I came back and did a series of more extensive searches, this appears to have been a topic briefly, producing a single article in a minor journal. I was not satisfied that anyone had found a proper merge topic, but as I thought about it, I realized that hack wirter is a perfect fit, this material will make a nice addition to that page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep or mergeEddie891 (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2017 (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.