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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative media (U.S. political left)[edit]

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

Stand-alone list article with no sources to either justify any item's inclusion or the notability of the subject itself, defined as "alternative media espousing the views of the American political left." (Actually there's one source, a YouTube video). Nor is there an inclusion criteria, resulting in a hodge podge covering everything from Project Censored to MSNBC. The corresponding Alternative media (U.S. political right) is not a stand-alone list but an article, and includes sources. Possible WP:TNT situation whereby someone could recreate using the same name, but as an article rather than a list. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this article gets deleted, please remember to fix links to it in other articles (something that wasn't done when two similar articles were recently deleted). - dcljr (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not really sure what motivates this deletion request. The articles' inclusion criteria would appear to be that the wikilinked wikipedia articles contain descriptions of "left" or "progressive" etc biased media - each notable in their own right or they wouldn't have an article here ;-). The articles reason to exist is no doubt to complement the Alternative media (U.S. political right) article. Yes it could do with a lot of work to change it from a list, to a full article, but that's hardly a reason to delete it, it's a reason to improve it. Eight related articles appear to link to it, so it appears some people think it's useful. Perhaps we should try spamming it with improvement templates before going for the jugular and deleting it!--Tony Wills (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The presence of "left" or "progressive," assuming it's referring to the outlet as a whole rather than a certain part of it, only qualifies it to be in a list of progressive media, not this one. The notability of the individual entries isn't the point, it's whether they belong here, which requires sourcing -- and even then, the subject of the article and inclusion criteria are ill-defined (see other comments below). Yes I'm sure the conservative article is the reason this exists, but again, isn't actually justification. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is unaware that nominations need to prove that the articles cannot be sourced, rather than simply are not sourced. The nominator is unaware that lists are OK. The nominator cites TNT but does not know what it means. The corresponding "right" article is actually a better reason for TNT than this one, in that it is a coatrack, half of its content being the ripping yarn of the contention of liberal bias. Ok, I never said it was a good reason for TNT, just that it is a better one... Anarchangel (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not that there aren't sources about "liberal media" that also refers to them as "alternative;" the problem (one of them) is the subject isn't even defined to the extent that any inclusion criteria exists! What qualifies something as "alternative media?" Self-identification? Right-wing news calls all non-right-wing news liberal, so in that way any small centrist organization should be included here, too. It's nonsense. Lack of inclusion criteria is also how something like MSNBC can exist here. If the inclusion criteria is that reliable sources have written about it as both being liberal and "alternative," then each needs a source for inclusion under those terms or is otherwise original research. There is no "lists are OK" policy. Lists ARE ok....as long as they meet the standards of the various policies/guidelines. How do I not know what TNT means? It means, in this case, that a good article could possibly be written on the subject, but what's there now is to ungodly terrible that it needs to be deleted in order to start over. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:03, 23 March 2014 (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.