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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American corporate media lobby[edit]

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

This article reads entirely like an essay with a strong opinion. Whatever you think of the American corporate media lobby, you have to admit this feels like an essay written by a university professor to express his or her opinion. Incidentally, the major contributions to this article were written by its creator, Jaobar, "an Assistant Professor of Communications at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology" according to his userpage. There have been no other substantive contributors. Kndimov (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is certainly an important topic but I don't see this article going anywhere, in the direction of becoming an encyclopedia article. There is not an organization that calls itself the American Corporate Media Lobby. It might be better to work more in the direction of something like "Government regulation of broadcast media in the United States." And then the lobbying efforts of media companies and trade organizations could be covered there, along with other aspects of the topic.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously an opinion piece rather than an encyclopedia article. I would also hope that the author of this article would want it to be deleted, because it is clear evidence against his claim to be some kind of academic authority about Wikipedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I can't recall how/why this article was originally created back in 2011. I was just starting with the Wikipedia Education Program at the time. I see that I did create it myself, and the content does look familiar, so it may have been an early attempt at editing. It is also possible that this was associated with a student assignment. Either way, I've read through the article again, and your comments, and appreciate your concern. I would argue that the page reads more like a stub than an opinion piece as there is some element of neutrality to some of the material. The citations are strong and credible (in my opinion), and would certainly point readers in the right direction if interested in further reading/research. The question is whether the content of the article is too biased to be beneficial to the community. I'm not convinced. I guess the question to answer is whether deletion is better than leaving the page with the warning (assuming that someone might improve the content). If you believe deletion is the best route, I won't stand in your way. Thanks again for your attention to detail. Oh and I should add that I wouldn't consider myself to be an academic authority about Wikipedia exactly, though I have been teaching with Wikipedia as an e-learning tool for five years, and have really enjoyed my experience thus far! All the best, --Jaobar (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an actual neutral encyclopedia article, but rather an opinion essay strongly pushing a point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay / opinion piece, not an NPOV encyclopedic article about a notable topic. This piece should be submitted to the members of the American corporate media lobby, which will be summarily rejected by the vast lamestream media conspiracy's high priests, wizards and grand poobahs. Alansohn (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:ESSAY, and WP:TNT. Classic advocacy of an issue, not an article, but rather an essay -- and a highly opinionated one at that! It's sad bad that even though it might be a notable topic it's so badly written as to force its destruction. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Written like an essay and would require a substantial rewrite to be encyclopedic. -- Dane ^talk 20:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SOAP, WP:ESSAY. In-depth discussion has already been covered by above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 10 December 2016 (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.