Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teen Magazine Effects

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Magazine Effects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Wikipedia is not a repository of school essays. While this piece would make a fine essay for an English or social studies class, it's outside the encyclopedic scope. It's very heavy on synthesis about trends and effects of magazines on teens; Wikipedia is not a repository for such original research. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom, also obviously goes against WP:NPOV Bob House 884 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. These are difficult claims to prove, and most of the arguments presented here seem to rely on post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacies. Could some of these arguments be listed as criticisms in the teen magazine article? Sure. But, a criticism and a claim of scientific validity are different things. This page seems to imply the latter. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Teen magazine. Teen magazine could certainly use a section about the social significance of teen magazines, and there appears to be some worthwhile, sourced content here. Right now that content is buried in a pile of conclusory NPOV text that's inappropriate for Wikipedia, but if legitimate information about commentaries and studies of the subject could be ere incorporated into a section of teen magazine, with proper in-text attributions to make it clear that the conclusions are those of the commentators, it could be a positive.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'll quote the rationale I used when I prodded it on March 10: "This is a pursuasive essay; it is meant to make an argument, and as such is inherently non-neutral." LadyofShalott 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even though some of the content might be incorporated into Teen magazine. Personally, I believe teen magazines are very good for teenagers and could write an essay proving that to be the case, but it wouldn't belong here.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:02, 22 March 2011 (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.