Talk:Media balance

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 June 2010. The result of the discussion was speedy keep with a redirect.

Whether to keep or redirect this article

I originally deleted the whole article, but somebody restored it by saying my edit was vandalism. Alright, let see if this is the case.
The article itself is a complete mess. None of the sources whatsoever deal with the main point of the article, that the concept of balance was created by the BBC as a way to promote the Conservative party. None. The citation that was used to cite about the BBC's formation of balance did not appear to refer to the BBC's formation of balance at all, instead talking about the 2003 Iraq War and rallying against it. The article also have an out-of-place quote about American journalism, which is a cool quote, but one that already exist on a separate page, one dedicated to objectivity.

I strongly suspect this article is a flat-out lie, at least until good, reliable sources are found for this article. As there has been none, I strongly nominate its deletion.--70.176.220.156 (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept that you meant well, but you cannot delete an article (make it inaccessible to anyone except Wikipedia administrators); that requires system administrator privileges, which you do not have. You can only replace the content of the article with "(blank space)". It's the difference between removing a book from the library shelves, and leaving the book on the shelves but with all the words crossed out. DS (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DragonFlySixtySeven...there is an AFD that has resulted in a speedy keep, with a redirect to Objectivity, since there is already a page on this. There is now today, still no redirect, and the keeping of that dumb "balance created by BBC" sentence, with no evidence that this is indeed the case. Those who support this page had 2 whole years to produce this evidence, and yet they didn't. I'm sorry, I'm pushing through the redirect because the consensus of Wikipedia is for redirection.--SilentScope001 (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep?: discussion moved from Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen

Media balance appears to cover the same area as Objectivity (journalism), and in fact, there has been support for a redirection of this page straight to that page (see this AFD). The article at the time appeared (Media Balance) to be a hoax due to claiming that the BBC created 'media balance' but providing no evidence that this is indeed the case (the sources provided instead talk about the Iraq War and does not mention any evidence of the creation of 'media balance'). That being said, I am happy with any information from Media Balance migrating over to Objectivity, so long as it is properly sourced and true. However, I was informed here that the history of these two pages has to be merged since the two pages do have different content. Can you please merge these two histories as soon as possible, so that "Media balance" can finally be redirected to "Objectivity (journalism)"? Thanks.--SilentScope001 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also state that another argument in favor of redirection is that Media Balance redirects to Objectivity (journalism) with no problem, while Media balance does not redirect and have its own article.--SilentScope001 (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done WP:Parallel histories: discussion moved to Talk:Media balance#Whether to keep or redirect this article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep?: continued discussion

According to the policy cited, the proposed course of action then is: ""An appropriate procedure for such a case is to forego the history merge, and instead handle the situation much like a normal merge; put a note pointing to the other version of the page on the article's talk page. If it is inappropriate to leave the second copy in the main article space, you can archive the duplicate page to Talk: space (i.e. by moving it to some suitable title, such as Talk:RandomArticle/OldVersion)."

So, should I just attempt to do that, making sure the link in question doesn't automatically redirect back to Objectivity (journalism)?--SilentScope001 (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has since been done.--SilentScope001 (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]