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 of the debate was speedily kept because it's been rewritten to be about a clearly valid idea. Any changes should be discussed on the Talk page. FCYTravis 03:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism in the sense used; Attack page; the few references used don't satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (websites); also major issues of WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, Wikipedia is not a soapbox; had been tagged totally disputed and citations needed; RFC had been made to Politics, and Media, art and literature Шизомби 08:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alexa Internet traffic rankings for sites cited: Newtopiamagazine.net: 3,671,022; Questionsquestions.net: 1,428,359; Oilempire.us: 238,267; leftgatekeepers.com: 2,679,074; globalresearch.org: 3,782,712; and an AOL site that can't be rated. There's definitely a question of Wikipedia:reliable sources for all of these. Шизомби 08:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is the Alexa site widely used on Wikipedia to decide which web sites should be used as sources? --NathanDW 01:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes. Wikipedia:List of ways to verify notability of articles Шизомби 07:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some people even like to place Alexa ratings in a WP article, see e.g. [1] Although see Wikipedia:Google test#Alexa test which I didn't discover until now. Note, however that the claims there are not cited. - if they are true, they should be. In any case, they still do not meet Wikipedia:Notability (websites) or Wikipedia:reliable sources. Шизомби 07:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, criticism doesn't seem to hold up after a review of the article. Sam Spade 10:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable sources can confirm the accuracy of the article. The idea does not make sense, either. Why would the "left media" want to suppress scandalous information about the Bush administration? That it does not make sense does not necessarily mean that it should be deleted, however. -- Kjkolb 11:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to neutral. I am still skeptical because of the lack of mainstream sources (whether it is true or not is irrelevant to my decision, but I appreciate the great effort to answer questions), but I think the contributors deserve more time to fix up the article. -- Kjkolb 10:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Few people graduate from a communications program without learning this concept. Try not to focus on the anecdotal example currently at the core of the article, but on the long recognized concept. Maybe it doesn't make sense to some people that others would accuse the left of policing their ranks with gatekeepers, but the article should not be about an anectode -- it should be about the concept. Every communications system has some kind of gatekeeper. This AfD process is a gatekeeper for Wikipedia. Here's a reliable source on the social science of gatekeeping: [2]WhoSaid? 21:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You might want to take a second look at the article. The premise of the term "gatekeeper" is that powerful foundations are spending serious money to buy off influential "left media" in order to suppress scandalous information about the Bush administration (among other things), which makes plenty of sense. --HK 16:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the article suffers from all the points I mentioned above, and probably more besides, HK is right about his statement above (i.e. it explains why some of the left media allegedly suppresses scandals:it's been bought off by the right). I don't know if this makes "plenty of sense," but it doesn't seem totally impossible, except that if it were true you'd expect the left media that hadn't been bought off to go over it, and seemingly it hasn't, only a handful of fringe websites. Шизомби 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I think I came to the wrong conclusion because each is the article is verbose and the true idea (I don't like to call it a theory, as people confuse everyday "theories" with scientific theories) is nearly as improbable as the other. As Шизомби mentioned, some of the left media would not have gone along with it, especially those outlets that are controlled by an independent owner or a wealthy person who operates at a loss to spread his or her agenda. Also, we should be hearing from mainstream journalists that their stories have been suppressed by editors or owners, as journalists tend to be highly principled and often quit rather than violate those principles. The idea depends on the gatekeepers having an extreme amount of control over what is published and broadcast, and the silence of journalists, newscasters and editors, who the article characterizes as "left" (an assumption that the article gives no evidence for). Chip Berlet is given as an example of a gatekeeper, but he does not have the power to suppress media stories, even for the organizations he has worked for because he is simply a writer. Noam Chomsky does not either and he is actually known for his criticism of the U.S. government, according to his Wikipedia article. Norman Solomon is also a writer and his affiliation with a watchdog group and the institute he founded do not give him the power to suppress news. Writers can write stories that are supportive of the government or against its detractors, but that does not stop other writers from writing stories critical of the government. Also, gatekeeping writers' work is subject to change or suppression by the alleged "left" editors and owners. A gatekeeper would have to be in a position of great power within an organization and could not control multiple organizations without having someone powerful in on it at each one or using memorandums about which stories are inappropriate, which could be easily leaked. Even if a person is in a position to suppress articles, in a large organization almost any individual can be bypassed by going to someone in an equivalent position or at a higher one. -- Kjkolb 00:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article appears to be well substantiated: Self-described socialist Noam Chomsky has described the Pentagon as "the most vile institution on the face of the earth" and lashed out against tax havens and trusts that benefit only the rich. But Chomsky has been paid millions of dollars by the Pentagon over the last 40 years, and he used a venerable law firm to set up his irrevocable trust to shield his assets from the IRS as an example. This is from [3]. It is argued that his job is to spread propaganda. For anyone interested doing research on this subject, there is plenty of verifiable, credible information that seems to support this hypothesis. SkeenaR 20:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, a closer look at the article should answer your questions. "Gatekeeper" is not synonymous with "censor;" the version of the article that presently appears defines a gatekeeper as one who acts "to manage, constrain and co-opt the movement," or to "ostracize particular voices." I suppose that this could be done by "suppressing media stories," as you suggest, but it might also take the form of organizing campaigns of defamation against other, more uncooperative journalists. I also find your assertion that "journalists tend to be highly principled" to be a rather broad statement; consider, for example, the case of Judith Miller, merely the first one that comes to mind (in fact, she might be an appropriate example of a gatekeeper.) --HK 01:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as attack. --Terence Ong 14:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The concept is presented in a neutral way, not as advocacy. The debate over the concept is also of some consequence for Wikipedia. --HK 16:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you mean you or those sites will attack WP as a gatekeeper, or me? I hope that isn't what that means (WP has plenty of scandalous stuff about Bush, anyway). The Gatekeepers article is simply not neutral from the first part of the first sentence: "In political parlance, a gatekeeper or left gatekeeper" - right there: "political parlance"? Broad use by politicians or political scientists? 'Fraid not. One of the other problems I failed to mention was the lengthy list of alleged gatekeepers. I don't know if there's a specific policy on allegations on WP (there's no lists of alleged homosexuals or people alleged by David Icke to be reptilian humanoids for example, though some pages do mention allegations), but List of people described as neoconservatives got deleted (see AfD) for similar reasons. The Gatekeepers article simply uncritically reproduces a list of allegations from a nn site WP is not a mirror (in its original conception it collated allegations from several nn sites). The article's primary author (WP:OWN) invited criticism to be added, but this theory seems to be so nn that apparently none of the major right, center, or left media has commented on it in the US or abroad. Шизомби 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, poorly sourced, appears to be intended as an attack piece on Chip Berlet. -Will Beback 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/move the article as rewritten by FCYTravis and move to Gatekeeper (journalism). -Will Beback 22:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I hesitate to vote "delete" on this article as it seems to be a term that is used by some conspiracy theorists and possibly others. I want to note, however, that this article is in no way "unbiased" or neutral point of view as some editors insist. For instance, use of terms like "Establishment" and "left media" (repeatedly), characterizing media coverage of 9/11 war games, and and implying that there are no critics or skeptics employed by the "left media" place this article squarely in the realm of POV. Of course, POV alone is not a sufficient reason to vote delete. I do not see the article as a whole as an attack on Berlet, as only one paragraph mentions him by name. My main concern with this article, however, is that it does not conform to WP:Verifiability. - Jersyko·talk 21:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Keep the article as rewritten by FCYTravis and move to Gatekeeper (journalism). - Jersyko·talk 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original creator of the article HK (who did not identify himself as such above) appears to have a history on WP with Chip Berlet (also a WP user) and thus apparently a vested interest (as WP defines it) in pages that attack Berlet. I don't know much about either one of them or their history, but this much deserves to be noted. Шизомби 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep poorly sourced and not conforming to NPOV, but enough meaningful content to be cleaned up. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anyone can add notable, reliable, verifiable sources and make the article NPOV before the AfD is through I may change my vote. However, I don't believe that this is possible, and will not change it on the (I think remote) possibility of this being done in the future. Шизомби 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article is well sourced with links outside of wikipedia to its use. There is no legitimate reason for deletion. It seems to be similiar to the producerism and conspiracism page with the exception that such said terms were quite dubious. --Northmeister 22:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- I don't think foundation-subsidized folks should be able to censor material on the wikipedia website that reflects grassroots anti-war left awareness of the special influence that foundations play in U.S. left political and media life. Political Research Associates has published a journal, Public Eye, in recent years. In 1999, the Public Welfare Foundation gave a $50,000 grant to PRA, the San Francisco Foundation gave $120,000 to PRA, the Tides Foundation gave $57,550 to PRA, the Cummings Foundation gave $55,000 to PRA, the List Foundation gave $25,000 to PRA and the Ms. Foundation for Women (which was given over $1.2 million in grants from the Ford Foundation between 2000 and 2002) gave $150,000 to PRA. In 2002, the Ford Foundation gave $176,663 in grant money directly to the PRA. These are facts. And it is also a fact that a Political Research Associates writer acted as a leading conspiracy researcher-baiter within the alternative media subculture after 9/11/01 and attempted to stifle left subculture discussion of 9/11 conspiracy evidence, as well as discussion of the role that the Ford Foundation plays in U.S. political left life today. Wikipedia's credibility as an alternative independent information source for internet readers will suffer if it capitulates to the pressure of foundation-subsidized folks and deletes an article, like this gatekeeper one,--that apparently contains information that the foundations and their stable of journalists/gatekeepers do not wish to see shared with Wikipedia readers.(bf)

• Comment Don't be dense There's ways to get your positions on WP without violating WP policy, as I noted on the Gatekeepers talk page. The Gatekeepers article, however, is incapable of doing that. Шизомби 00:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Your argument is sophistry. Are any foundation-sponsored editors/writers presently helping to determine what "violates WP policy"? Have the majority of WP readers ever been allowed to determine WP policy with regard to which articles to censor? Are the WP gatekeepers willing to also start deleting all the articles that are little more than repostings of corporate-sponsored, historically inaccurate and politically-biased corporate websites?

If foundation-sponsored gatekeepers have conflict-of-interest issues which lead them to censor wikipedia articles that are critical of their foundation-sponsors, then they are not really capable of editing the wikipedia website in an ethical way, from an alternative journalistic point of view. Perhaps it's more appropriate for such folks to act as gatekeepers for more middle-class academic-biased/establishment-oriented encyclopedias, like the World Book or the Encyclopedia Britannica?--bf

• Comment It would help if you indented your response underneath the post you are responding to with either an asterisk or a colon (or more than one as necessary). It would be nice if you signed with four tildes ~~~~ too. Anyway, I'm not sure I entirely follow you. (1) Are any foundation-sponsored editors/writers presently helping to determine what "violates WP policy"? I don't know. Going through the history for each article and corresponding talk page for each policy page would take an awfully long time, and I don't know that there'd be any way to prove which editors were "foundation-sponsored" or not, since in most cases there wouldn't be any way to prove who any of the editors' identities are. (2) Have the majority of WP readers ever been allowed to determine WP policy with regard to which articles to censor? Do you mean have the majority of WP readers been allowed to edit the policy pages? As far as I know everyone can edit those pages, but AFAIK most don't chose to make edits to those pages. Or do you mean are the majority of WP readers involved in the AfD process? I would guess most aren't, that most WP users simply read articles, followed by creating new articles or editing articles. I think it's probably a smaller percentage that bother with AfD, which seems to be a necessary process unless you really want every article posted on WP to stay (e.g. Dogballs). (3) Are the WP gatekeepers willing to also start deleting all the articles that are little more than repostings of corporate-sponsored, historically inaccurate and politically-biased corporate websites? Who are WP gatekeepers, all the people involved in the AfD process? Also, it would help if you identified what sort of articles you had in mind. It seems to me editors do try to address issues of "corporate-sponsor[ship]" "historically inaccura[cy]" and "political[]-bias[]" in articles, but whether they can keep up with such problems, or address them as well as is necessary are open questions. (4) If foundation-sponsored gatekeepers have conflict-of-interest issues which lead them to censor wikipedia articles that are critical of their foundation-sponsors, then they are not really capable of editing the wikipedia website in an ethical way, from an alternative journalistic point of view. I'm not sure if you're referring to prior editing of this article (and the AfD), and/or editing of articles about foundations. Certainly, I would agree that if somebody is taking money from e.g. the Ford Foundation, and they make edits to that article, then they potentially have a conflict of interest and an ethical problem. There might be some ethical people who could work past those problems, but for the most part it would be unwise. My "sponsor" at present moment could be said to be my late grandmother (thanks Oma), and I'm afraid she would not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Deceased people so there's never been and probably never will be an article on her here. With regard to pages for foundations and media, I'd advise you to do what I indicated at the bottom of the Gatekeepers talk page, what HK agreed with; I'd support such edits and help revert edits removing such information if I came across it. I see no sophistry in that. Шизомби 07:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Term is real and verifiable. POV is solved by NPOVing, not deleting the article. Liking or not liking the term is irrelevant. I dont get why the validity of the term is disscussed here, for all i know it could be a figment of imagination, it does not matter. What mater is that it is real and verifiable term, much like the term "gods", although much less notable. --Striver 10:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Atfyfe 13:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete nn neologism and as previously pointed out, the sources "cited" for this page have extremely low alexa rankings and are thus not reputable sources.--Jersey Devil 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets Wikipedia standards. SkeenaR 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has historic merit regarding the evolution of left media and its relationship to political events. The sources are reputable and the gatekeeping is real and documented. I urge anyone questioning this topic to read the source articles for themselves. Bov 01:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Quite notable topic, especially given the increasing encroachment upon the Wiki itself by deletionists with vested interests. Ombudsman 15:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first reference given is very dubious - there is no indication who it is supposed to be, or what its aims, and indeed its funding are. The article itself clearly is an effort to deal with actual content, some of which is of some significance, but I am very doubtful that it is a useful description or a process or body that should be considered separately from corruption bribery politics spin-doctoring lying propaganda sabotage public relations etc. The thesis is not made out in the material presented, and while an article about suborning political opponents in the media might be written, I don't see this as it, nor the title as a good one. There isn't a fence for this gate to be kept in. I see the WP article as an adjunct to the .com site, although this is purely supposition - regardless, I think this is presenting something as distinct which is really just a routine conspiracy. Midgley 17:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Keep--NathanDW 01:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the user User:Northmeister deleted my above comment where I linked the creator of the article asking people to vote on this afd. This isn't acceptable on Wikipedia afds.....He just did it again. [4]--Jersey Devil 02:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any comments added should pertain to the article, its substance, and whether or not it should be kept etc. No personal attacks or surveillance techniques to dishonor another editor. Jersey Devil has done this twice, please refrain from personal harassment. Thank You. --Northmeister 04:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Jersey Devil comments above are inappropriate for a page discussing the relevancy of an article. It is dishonorable to conduct surveillance of others with the intent to harass. I ask that he remove his comments to establish his credibility and restore his honor. --Northmeister 05:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hmm, you didn't delete the baseless attack on the recommend delete people that we're all "foundation-subsidized", you only deleted the fact-based "attack" on the recommend keep people. That's a bit one-sided. (What is policy on what Jersey Devil did, is there one?) Is mediation possible on AfDs? Шизомби 05:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure what your talking about. Any personal attacks are un-called for and should be removed by those who make them or by other editors. We are interested in whether this article meets the standards of wikipedia pure and simple. Surveillance of others with the intention to discredit those individuals is not only bad manners, it is in violation of wikipedia harassment standards. Conduct a civil discourse without name-calling or harassment is all I ask. Is this article, well cited? Is this article relevant? Does this term get use outside of wikipedia? Etc. are what is under discussion. Not whether any one editor tries to inform people that a vote is taking place and then calling it VOTE STACKING, that is harassment and a personal attack and I removed it as such. --Northmeister 05:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The attacks I referred to that Northmeister above said were not understood were (bf)'s comments above (User:Bob jan AKA User:209.213.73.30). I apologize for my long response to bf, whom I let annoy me. And Northmeister, I wish you would explain why you feel the article is "well sourced" when the handful of sites used as sources don't meet WP criteria by a long shot - see my original post in the AfD and the comment below about the Alexa ratings. Шизомби 05:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "attack" wasn't a personal one if it was merely pointing out likely or potential vote-stacking. If there is evidence that a certain group of people is vote-stacking in similar Afds, it's actually more relevant to this discussion, not less. Asking someone to vote in an Afd is, as far as I know, not against Wikipedia policy, even if you know how they will vote beforehand. It is, however, a relevant consideration for a sysop that is attempting to determine consensus in an Afd vote, consensus being a muddy concept (as it should be, imo). Please remember to assume good faith and interact civilly- Jersyko·talk 05:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good points and I understand what your writing. But, how am I to assume good faith with someone who writes 'vote stacking'? That person is not assuming good faith himself. --Northmeister 05:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' The good faith/civility comment was meant to be a reminder for everyone here. Regarding whether the information about potential vote stacking violates WP:AGF, well, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." I.e., if there is evidence of potential vote stacking, an editor can and should point out the evidence. Here, there is at least some evidence of vote stacking (though the nature and weight of the evidence will be for the sysop who goes through this Afd to determine), thus it was appropriate, in my judgment, for Jersey to point to the evidence despite AGF. I hope this makes sense, forgive me for being somewhat long-winded. Cheers. - Jersyko·talk 05:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Posting the vote stacking links concerns this article and getting into a revert war to try and hide it is a serious offense. You aren't suppose to delete other people's comments on an afd. I have also deleted the part of my comment which could be interpreted as a personal attack already. Needless to say, if you see the user's talk page and the bottom of his user page he has been accused of being a POV Larouchite editor in the past. He also just broke the three revert rule. I have already informed an administrator about it.--Jersey Devil 05:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have broken the three revert rule actually well before your above post. Second, to revert personal attacks is not in violation of that rule. Third, I ask that you refrain from your continued personal attacks on myself and other users. Fourth, I ask that you remove your words 'vote stacking' as a personal attack on the creator of this article. Fifth, I ask that you make an official apology to that said user for your harassment and surveillance of his postings. Sixth, I ask a personal apology to myself. See above for reasons to edit out your personal attacks and harassment. Harassing another editor is in violation of Wikipedia Harassment and I ask you stop. --Northmeister 05:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC) -Now you are attacking me by calling me a POV LaRouchite? Who are the others? The names of the accusers are as revealing as the McCarthy like accusations that were made and the individuals who continue to reveal their true motivations for disrupting this vote in violation of wiki-standards. --Northmeister 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Will Beback, et al.--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Where to begin? Let's see ...

a) Hopelessly POV. It assumes that the media in the United States is left-wing, which laughable statement seems to actually be believed in some quarters, but should still not be reported as "fact".

b) It's a LaRouchite fantasy. Actually, let's scratch out "fantasy": when we're dealing with LaRouche, one doesn't need to specify the disconnection with reality, since it's basically inherent.

c) Undue weight. The term is not used in political parlance; it's used by a handful of lunatics and conspiracy theorists when writing lunacy on conspiracy theories.

d) It's a LaRouchite hit list. I suspect, as a general policy issue, we should profit most mightily from refusing to host LaRouchite hit lists.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a forum for conspiracy nuts and Lyndon LaRouche fanboys to piss all over the sum of human knowledge. Whatever happened to that ArbCom ruling that this sort of crap had to die, anyway? Has it expired? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, the article makes reference to actual left-wing media and people (Democracy Now, Mother Jones, Amy Goodman), but that makes it an even bigger load of codswallop, since it's essentially an elaborate rationalization as to why the American left isn't buying the 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have figured out why we liberals never win any elections. It's because we have a group of people who expend enormous effort and energy trying to prove that other leftists aren't ideologically pure enough or far-left enough. Bill Moyers and The Nation are part of a grand CIA conspiracy and George Soros' Trilateral Commission funding turns Pacifica into dupes? Holy. Fucking. Shit. Delete this tripe. FCYTravis 06:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Attack page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete confused nonsense. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cursing, as seen above in this discussion, is not argument. Attacks and counterattacks directed at political factions are not arguments relevant to the article under consideration. The term is widely used in political analysis by analysts at several stations along the political spectrum. Its history dates back at least 50 years, as documented by legitimate academic source. The article is badly slanted against perceived left gatekeepers, but that can be fixed. The pervasiveness of the term in political anaylysis is reflected by the choice of the National Communications Association to name their Mass Communication Division Newsletter "The Gatekeeper". Try looking at some legitemite etymology before typing a tirade against a poorly written article. The word has a long, documented history, available even from easily found reputable on-line sources such as the University of Twente. According to this, it might better be subtitled (communication) rather than (politics). WhoSaid? 21:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is so poorly written and slanted against one particular POV that we would do far better to simply delete this article and start from scratch at Gatekeeper (communications). FCYTravis 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a legitimate topic. 205.177.246.156 01:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete violates WP:RS Morton devonshire 07:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the same user is trying to popularize the phrase by putting them in articles. See the page history for the Ford Foundation.--Jersey Devil 18:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Attack page, nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, vote stacking. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]--Jersey Devil 20:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've done a NPOV rewrite stub focusing on the general concept of a communications gatekeeper, instead of one particular conspiracy theory. Keep as rewritten and move to Gatekeeper (journalism). FCYTravis 22:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I am not sure you can re-write something in the middle of a vote. But, that aside. I like what you wrote, as it is NPOV. However, it is quite limited and Gatekeeper refers to more than what you wrote about. There needs to be the entire idea of Gatekeeper included, as was originally presented in the article. I propose we start with your re-writing, and those interested work together to get a balanced, accurate, NPOV article done. I propose this to you and to the original creator as well. What do you say? Let's end the vote and work on this together in sandbox or whatnot. --Northmeister 23:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Anyone can edit any article at any time, provided it is not otherwise protected from editing. I certainly think the concept described in the previous article deserves discussion as an example of an alleged "gatekeeping" abuse, but I'm not sure it needs the level of detail. We certainly shouldn't be attempting to comprehensively list any alleged "gatekeepers," because a List of alleged gatekeepers would theoretically include everyone from the Pope to Robert McNamara to Andy Rooney to, as we saw, Noam Chomsky. FCYTravis 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment True. I am interested in what the original creator of the article thinks here. I believe we can work together to include much more than exists now, from your starting point and avoid pointing fingers directly at a large list of persons. --Northmeister 01:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course he can re-write in the middle of an AfD (which is, incidentally, not a vote). What purpose would be served by preventing people from doing so? Travis's rewrite looks good; I'm very curious as to how the article's original author feels about it, however, and whether he'll try to re-introduce illegitimate content ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already been reverted once, and I reverted back. I believe we should start with an NPOV stub and build from there, rather than try to rework a clearly-POV pile of mush. FCYTravis 01:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, that is actually much better but couldn't it still be considered a neologism and thus not warrant a page?--Jersey Devil 23:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept of a "gatekeeper" in journalism is much better defined, and was discussed even in my basic Mass Communications/Journalism 130 survey course. FCYTravis 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as rewritten by FCYTravis, but might belong better at Gatekeeper (publishing), since the concept (which is a notable one, especially in the era of blogging, user-written sites like Wikinews, self-published book, etc.) is not limited to journalism, but is common to the publishing industry, including books as well as magazines and newspapers. I don't feel strongly about the name, though. MCB 23:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as rewritten and move to Gatekeeping (communication), since the external link says that the term is applied in other aspects of human communication. mikka (t) 00:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as rewritten and move to Gatekeeping (communication)(s). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have moved the article per the nascent consensus here, and I suggest that we close the AfD and proceed with the stub as-is. Should it be communication, or communications? FCYTravis 02:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be in a rush. 6 hours are left until normal closure. Besides, the "s" name is bad. "in Communications" usually refers to "means of communication". Gatekeeping (communication) would be correct in this case. mikka (t) 02:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not be in a rush? Who cares about "normal closure"? The article is not about politics, so it shouldn't be at politics. I don't need to have a process tell me that it's OK to do that. Just write the encyclopaedia. FCYTravis 03:06, 14 March 2006 (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.