Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power (communication)

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Power (communication)[edit]

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

Doesnt serve any useful purpose, it is substantially a duplication of Power (social and political) and the other material is mainly poorly cited original research. Penbat (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as duplicate material --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 08:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sue, I am sure you came accross this, ,this and and especially this. Seems the folks at Berkley like to link power and communication. As do others. Sure others dont, But notable organizations do. This work was cited 29 times on google scholar PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article suffers from a serious lack of focus and relies heavily on a single source "Rothwell, J. Dan (2010). In the company of others : an introduction to communication". It might be worth having a section in Power (social and political) covering the connection between power and communication but I cant see any useful material currently in Power (communication) worth transferring and it may take a long time before anybody feels motivated to use any other sources to write more material.--Penbat (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sourcing for this article, including the new ones mentioned by PortlandOregon97217, is almost completely non-existent, or inadequite, as Penbat mentions above. This really should have been speedied. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an essay. Subjects like this are hard to treat directly in an encyclopedia, and basing it upon a single article is, as Sue says, a very poor way to do things. The argument above, that the article was cited 29 times, is a very poor one--it confirms the view that this is a disguised but deliberate attempt to write an article here to promote that particular article or view of things, but for an influential article on social sciences to be worth covering separately, I think we'd need at least an order of magnitude greater references to it=, and for a theoretical view in social science to be notable, take a lot more than one article. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 13 January 2013 (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.