Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate media

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. This AfD was started after the article had already been redirected to Concentration of media ownership, which would arguably make RfD the right forum. But Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 27#Corporate media was closed in favor of this discussion. In this discussion, there is consensus to not retain this as an article, and no consensus as to whether a redirect is appropriate. Accordingly, the AfD is closed as delete (because almost nobody seems to think that retaining the history is in any way useful). All editors are now free to recreate the redirect and to re-contest it at RfD. Sandstein 07:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate media[edit]

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

Corporate media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely McBad. WP:NPOV, WP:Weasel, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYNTH issues. Originally requested a merge/redirect/whatever as suggested by Neutrality, who went ahead with the redirect anyways. Then this RfD discussion opened up, where most people suggested the article be deleted instead. So here we are. Also, wow, this article's 16 years old? Damn. We're chipping into the artifacts to remove the dirt, huh? AdoTang (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is a buzzword-type phrase rather than a specific concept that has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of topics already covered in other articles, such as media ownership. I would also be OK with a redirect to concentration of media ownership (which is where media ownership currently redirects). Neutralitytalk 14:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was one who first noticed that the unilateral redirect of this long-standing dumpster fire was inappropriate, and that the target was poorly chosen. The usage in most contexts, media owned by corporations, is too broad for the redirect to Concentration of media ownership. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above, fails GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge It's easy to find other redirect targets such as media conglomerate, aka Big media. But why don't we see whether there are books on the subject:
  1. The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest
  2. Media Corporate Entrepreneurship: Theories and Cases
  3. News Incorporated: Corporate Media Ownership and Its Threat
  4. The Globalization of Corporate Media Hegemony
  5. Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy
  6. Journalism in Crisis: Corporate Media and Financialization
  7. The Political Economy of Media
  8. Who Owns the Media: Global Trends and Local Resistances
  9. Megamedia: How Giant Corporations Dominate Mass Media
  10. Big Media, Big Money
The broad topic in these is the control of mass media by large media empires which are mostly interested in making money. The phrase "corporate media" also appears in the title of numerous books about corporate media management – how non-media businesses can and should use the media to support their business. There's clearly lots to say here and that seems to be the main trouble – it's hard to make a simple article out of such a cacophony. And, of course, while we're working hard to figure that out, we read in our own media that the WMF is creating a corporation to market the results to Big Tech – the 21st-century version of Big Media. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Media is a redirect to concentration of media ownership, which was the proposed redirect target. The book titles you reference are a mishmash: as you point out, the first two are textbooks on media management, an aspect of business administration, while most others are specifically about media ownership or concentration of media ownership (in fact, at least of those books, by McChesney, is already cited at the latter article). It seems to the extent that any of the other books are useful sources, they would be most useful at one of the existing pages. I don't think it makes sense to have a gigantic article conflating two potential topics, each with very different focus (and it raises synthesis issues too). Maybe we should put a disambiguation page here, pointing to those two articles. Neutralitytalk 18:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's Big media that redirects to media conglomerate. Like I said, it's a cacophony. The issue is explained at WP:BROAD: "a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts." But, as we're an encyclopedia, we should not be ducking difficult topics, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 18:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but we should be careful about how we cover topics, and should avoid redundancy. (Also: It's rather confusing that Big media (small 'm') and Big Media (big 'm') redirect to two different articles!) Neutralitytalk 19:27, 29 March 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corporate_media&oldid=1016452631"