Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Onion and Satirical Newspapers in today's Media Industry

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 Userfied per discussion at ANI. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Onion and Satirical Newspapers in today's Media Industry[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion...". See also WP:VAGUEWAVE and note that WP:ESSAY is just an index of Wikipedia essays. Warden (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this article is part of an educational project. The author is a new Wikipedian and a university student. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite correct, the correct link is WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:OR. Why not give a non procedural response instead of being pedantic? Part of the educational project should be teaching students (and their professors who created this assignment, and their ambassadors) what appropriate articles for wikipedia are. These articles are great school papers. School papers do not belong on wikipedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the adaptation of term papers into encyclopedia articles is something very desirable, if they're well researched, wikified, and written to form. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OR and NOTESSAY. That it may serve a function for the author is meaningless, and in spite of it's many fine qualities as an essay, it isn't appropriate content for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and possibly merge at some later date) I agree with Colonel Warden here, a link is not a deletion rationale. essay-ish articles and OR can be fixed through editing, only in severe cases should an article be deleted for this, per WP:ATD. I think that there is salvageable content here. 137.43.188.153 (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — 137.43.188.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Pretty clearly an essay, pretty clearly a serious contribution. I'd hope the closing administrator will constrain the outcomes here to KEEP, MERGE, or USERFY, in the name of DO NOT BITE THE NEWCOMERS. No opinion how to play this myself at the moment, I'll return to it when I get a chance. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have written a longish communication to the new content contributor giving them my take on the situation, hopefully getting them up to speed. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on your talk as well, but I think what you wrote is great. I think you should submit that as a new rough draft template for twinkle or something for articles that get AFDed, as it gives way more information and easy letdown than what currently happens. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting, well-written piece that I'm sorry to say does not belong as a Wikipedia article as it is synthesis and original research. Parts of this could certainly be merged into the regular Onion article, which could probably do with a section on its impact on society. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as a fork of The Onion. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I presume the nominator meant to link to WP:NOTESSAY, and if so, it'd be a good idea to fix that up now to keep the procedural wiki-lawyering to a minimum. "Not Essay" and original research concerns abound with this entry, it reads as a personal observation of the media and satirical news sourced. An interesting read, but more suited for the OpEds or a blog. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy because this is an academic assignment which is inappropriate for the mainspace (in particular, its last paragraph blatantly violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by editorializing). Userfying would allow the article creator to try to bring the page up to Wikipedia standards. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Userify: The content is an essay. "Satirical news sources have become a staple in today’s media." Actually, this is not a new development, satirical news goes way back, at least into the early 1800s (and perhaps longer but that's outside my knowledge area). And "There is an ongoing debate as whether or not satirical newspapers should be brought on as dailies. Satirical newspapers should not be published as dailies." Yes, they should be published twice-daily.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC). Change !vote to userify. Oh vey re the class project, a huge disconnect is going on there.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Metropolitan90 and because thee article's talk page says "This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term." This doesn't belong in the main space, but it also doesn't belong at AfD. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This has been brought to the attention of ANI since it's the third article from this class to come to AfD. PaintedCarpet (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2011 (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.