Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Propaganda in the United States

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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda in the United States

After attempting to cleanup and de-POVify this article I found it contained no useful information. It is composed entirely of the unsourced, unverified opinions of its primary author. --rehpotsirhc 14:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A sack of assumptions without proofs > /dev/null -- Grafikm_fr 14:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mmx1 14:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Keep after article rewrite. Still recommend deletion of history prior to blanking, which was what I advocated anyway. --Mmx1 20:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - crap "article" --Kalsermar 15:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • After rewrite, still voting delete. In its present form 1.5 paragraph actually deals with the subject. See my comment on article's talk page.--Kalsermar 20:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, possible original research. --Terence Ong 15:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOR, there is a place for an article on this subject if (heavily) verified WP:V, but this one is not it.--blue520 15:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up. Could be a useful article. There's already an article dealing with Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, and there's no inherent why this article couldn't be improved and de-POVed. Fishhead64 15:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up. This article, without doubt, needs a lot of attention and it is filled with POV. (In the talk page, I wrote a list of places that it needs references.) But according to the Wikipedia:Deletion Policy, these two problems should cause change, not deletion. The article should be pruned mercilessly and closely edited to meet Wikipedia's standards... but not deleted. Chip Unicorn 18:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning delete Good name, bad article. maybe just redirect to Media :) --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 18:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• While I agree with much of the contents, I don't see anything verifiable as a source for any of it. Mostly WP:NOR and WP:NPOV violations. Weak keep and cleanup because this might be a slightly better starting point than deleting and rewriting from scratch. Topic is encyclopedic per precedents such as Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, but it's a POV magnet which will provoke edit wars. A sensitive topic and a poorly-documented early version aren't sufficient reasons to delete. Barno 18:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Utterly dreadful article full of unsourced generalisations, perjorative statements and assumptions. Nontheless the subject is valid and should stay. Keep. DJ Clayworth 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I think the core issue is whether this article title is inherently POV, that is, is it a matter of controversy whether or not the US government issues propaganda. If the answer's yes, then the topic deserves examination. Article needs a lot of work, maybe it's overly broad, and it will be controversial, but should be kept. --Lockley 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Valid topic, but badly needs de-POVing and sources. BryanG 23:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. For great justice. 23:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable and probably all OR. Resubmit if heavily edited and proper sources provided. Wstaffor 02:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete based on current content -- just a mass of generalities with a diversion into the issue of censorship. A legitimate article on this topic is possible, but this isn't it. --Metropolitan90 03:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and start over, this is just sloppy. Gazpacho 17:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, not the first article that had a bad start. Gazpacho 19:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Cleanup - In one form or another this article should remain: It is an issue of global concern, whether or not claims within are valid. De-POV, and probably remove the "Propaganda in Advertisement"; it's tautological as advertisement is inherently propagandist. Cathal 16:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I see that a few editors have largely blanked the article and rewritten it from scratch. Although there are still some POV problems, it is no longer in need of outright deletion, so I'm withdrawing my AfD nomination. --rehpotsirhc 16:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's valid, I have started a translation into Spanish.--tequendamia 16:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• That something is tautological is no reason not to mention it (with citations). Gazpacho 23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but clean up - As it is it's a bloody mess, and not wothy of a place in an encyclopedia. However, there are a lot of things worth consideration in the article that would be a shame to waist.Islander(Scandinavia) 22:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• The fact this article has been reported for deletion is absurd and pretty ironic! It's like trying to say propaganda doesn't exist in america and at the same time demonstating that it does! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.218.235.18 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but Redo Idea is good, current article is s@#t. Mbralchenko 21:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I want the article, in its future state. Would need a lot of real development. Shenme 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - content is so broad as to be redundant with Media of the United States, but with a heavy POV slant. Any unique content should be merged with Propaganda --Ajdz 06:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Needs work but a notable subject which can develop into a constructive article.--Cini 19:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean up. This article definitly has potential, all it needs is some further research, editing, and citing of sources. --Malgalad 17:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - It already has a (better) start at Propaganda. You could consider splitting that article by geography, but it would lose a lot of important context. --Ajdz 00:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Valid topic. we have many country specific articles for major topics like culture, dance, demographics. Propaganda is one of big ones, even judging from the size of the article. `'mikka (t) 16:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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.