Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian perspectives on media freedom

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian perspectives on media freedom

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

Disputed PROD. Original reason given for proposed deletion: "Essay-like article with a sprinkling of WP:SYNTH." Singularity42 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We are not for essays. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay, filled from start to finish with opinions and personal reflections (e.g. "Undoubtedly, the new media has provided citizens more platforms...", "In China ... the usage of the internet is vibrant and pervasive", "The most influential part ... is that the informed citizenry could contribute to the democratization", etc etc). Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:NOTESSAY applies here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Zhumengmeng (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)This article aims to define a new dimension of the media freedom,presents a study and two organazations doing this research. With a deletion of subjective opinions can this article be published?[reply]

Without realising it, you have just given a reason for deletion. You are saying, in effect, that you are using Wikipedia to publish original research, but Wikipedia's policy is that we don't publish original research. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. In response to Zhumengmeng above, the problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog, newspaper, or scientific journal. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is an essay with WP:SYNTH. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, SYTH, and all that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else so far - essay, synthesis and original research. However well footnoted and sourced, you're never going to get away from those three problems with this sort of vague topic. WP is an encyclopedia, not a think-tank or school/university. N-HH talk/edits 15:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT. No bias for possible recreation if done in compliance but article is not savable now. --LauraHale (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above statements. I, unfortunately, don't see a way to salvage this in to an encyclopedic article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think I know the person who did this, and I would just like to apallogize for this whole thing. It was born out of a fundamental misincomprehension of Wikipedia's project purpose and mission and I don't think that they will do it again. I think there will probably be more articles around that were created at approximately the roughly the same time on similar topics (essays) though. I will try to see if I can find them all based on an LINQ so that I can nominate them for deletion and again I sorry that this was happened to Wikipedia. DrPhen (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2012 (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.