Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media panic

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 July 28.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media panic[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: I make no endorsement of this XfD. (contested PROD) Original PROD nominator comment: "Seems to consist solely of original research." —mono 03:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This concept is much used and quite well-established in media studies. I agree however that the article needs to be expanded with more sources, and have every intention of doing so. --Anderssl (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. This may be different enough from moral panic to support a stand alone article, although it might be merged with them. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may well support a merge at a later point, if we don't come up with enough material to justify a separate article. --Anderssl (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The expression may be well used, by WP:Assume good faith I am sure it is since a WP editor said so. However the article merely defines what "media panic" is, against WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The fact that new media have run into criticism and opposition should be explained in some article on Media or the History of media, and the expression introduced there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep a distinct kind of moral panic, where the subject of the panic can uniquely 'talk back'; worthy of a chance to become a good article, and if it doesn't we can merge with moral panic as suggested above --Arkelweis (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge this seems way to close to moral panic, the Media is only one part of the moral panic seems like Content fork. Possibly WP:NEO as i see no usage in google scholar but connections to moral panic is clear Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2010 (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.