Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media industry

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 Redirect to Mass Media. Maxim_(talk) 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media industry

An unsourced buzzword romp, makes little sense, cannot see that it rises to the level of an encyclopedia entry. Has been tagged for sources and expansion since Feb 2007. The last sentence is atrocious. SolidPlaid 09:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term "media industry" is a very widely used term, and it refers to a very large slice of the services industry. The article in it's present form is not very well written, but that's not a good enough reason to delete it. There seem to be hundreds of potential references out there talking about the history of the media industry, so I see no good reason why a good article on the subject couldn't be written. —gorgan_almighty 10:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the term different from "the media"? Steel industry redirects to Steel, Mining industry redirects to Mining. Automotive industry is a for real article, can Media industry be brought up to that standard? SolidPlaid 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The media redirects to Mass media. I originally considered this same redirect for this article, but I think the terms "media industry" and "mass media" are different. "Mass media" is only a part of the "media industry". —gorgan_almighty 10:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my problem: I don't think this term is clearly deliminated or defined. It overlaps with Mass media, and in its present state is worse than a redirect. SolidPlaid 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author's point is apparently that publishing, broadcasting and the internet are interacting as if they were one industry, rather then competing, maybe like AOL Time Warner. If it's that important, hasn't anyone written a book or an article about it (plus done a TV and radio spot and a blog)? "The growth of the media industry walks hand in hand with new forms of communicative based technology." That is kind of atrocious. I had a growth on my hand once... Mandsford 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems more like bad editing than a bad topic Mbisanz 01:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 18:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mass media. Nothing here that isn't, or couldn't be, treated in that article. As SolidPlaid indicates above, there's no point in having an "X industry" article when we already have an article on X. Deor 18:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is original research - "my opinion of what's really going on" in the world of media. MarkBul 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with the redirect to Mass media - they're basically the same thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mass media unless (or until) it gets expanded. --Yeshivish 20:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to mass media. Clear cut case of redundancy.--Victor falk 21:07, 21 September 2007 (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.