Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Videocracy

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 delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Videocracy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEO. The cited sources are passing mentions without significant coverage. Daask (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first citation contains the word in its title, hardly a 'passing mention'. Malick78 (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While a relatively new term, there's a few sources that explore the concept in depth such as Videocracy by Kevin Allocca and Democracy or videocracy? An econometric analysis of the role of television in the Italian political arena by Fabio Sabatini along with the already cited sources. This should be enough for the subject to meet GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Contrary to the above, neither of those two sources are about "videocracy". Neither of them even use the term outside of the title. It's just a snappy buzzword. They may be about "the importance of video" or "importance of image" in a way that overlaps with countless ideas in the humanities and social sciences, but per WP:NEO we need coverage of this term, not just its use. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two references to the term in the article are used in such a way to indicate that the authors recognized that the term was not a new term of scholarly discussion but instead a provocative label. The usages in the two articles cited in this discussion are similar in that there is no analysis, definition, or discussion of videocracy as a concept but instead the term is used solely in the title again as an attention-grabber. I cannot find any usages of videocracy that do not match this type of usage, which indicates that not even the authors that use it think it is a useful term that would justify an article here under our standards. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:00, 30 January 2022 (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.