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. Courcelles 21:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy journalism

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism was closed as "no consensus to delete". Following the closure, I have moved the page from the incubator to the mainspace so that the community can evaluate whether the changes have addressed the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 24. Cunard (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page of the article:

Discussion about suitability as an article
Assessment Article incubation assessment Does the article establish notability of the subject ? A. It meets the general notability guideline: B. It meets any relevant subject specific guideline: Is it verifiable? A. It contains references to sources: B. There are inline citations of reliable sources where necessary: C. There is no original research: Is it neutral? A. It is a fair representation without bias: B. It is written in a non-promotional manner: It does not contain unverifiable speculation: Pass, Fail or Hold for 7 days: 1A: There is no significant coverage in reliable sources 1B: No specific guideline - but comes under WP:NOTNEO, which is a specific policy forbidding this sort of article Disagree - A neologism is a new word or phrase, the article is classification of a type of journalism, similar to other categorizations. Jettparmer (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] 2A: Yes, there are sources 2B: Yes, there are inline citations 2C: Sources do not support the article as a topic. Sources show usage of the term as a neologism. There are a number of statements which are not supported by sources. The article appears to be original research, and there is no evidence otherwise - indeed, the article is constructed as an argument that the term does convey a recent concept. Disagree - A neologism is a new word or phrase (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neologism), the article is classification of a type of journalism, similar to other categorizations. Article points out usage as classification device, vice a neologism Jettparmer (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] 3A/B: The article is constructed as an essay persuading the reader that the concept of "conspiracy journalism" exists and that the term is being used in the media. Disagree - At no point does the article advocate for the existence of the category. It seeks to frame and identify the usage in media and academic circles. Term is clearly in use.Jettparmer (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] 4 Not applicable Disagree - Article contains no future speculation whatsoever. Jettparmer (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] 5 Fail. The article was deleted after a discussion in which the only keep argument came from the originator and main contributor, User:Jettparmer. Jettparmer then asked for a deletion review, in which the decision was to endorse the deletion, though an offer was made to move the material to a subpage via either incubation or userfication. Jettparmer elected for incubation, though the article has not attracted attention from any other editor. As Jettparmer has moved the material to his userpage - User:Jettparmer#Conspiracy_Journalism - it is appropriate to take this page to WP:MfD. SilkTork ^YES! 17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Update* - Material removed from user pages per WP:UserPage. Jettparmer (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about suitability as an article

Assessment

Article incubation assessment

Does the article establish notability of the subject ?
A. It meets the general notability guideline:

B. It meets any relevant subject specific guideline:
Is it verifiable?
A. It contains references to sources:

B. There are inline citations of reliable sources where necessary:

C. There is no original research:
Is it neutral?
A. It is a fair representation without bias:

B. It is written in a non-promotional manner:
It does not contain unverifiable speculation:
Pass, Fail or Hold for 7 days:

1A: There is no significant coverage in reliable sources
1B: No specific guideline - but comes under WP:NOTNEO, which is a specific policy forbidding this sort of article
- Disagree - A neologism is a new word or phrase, the article is classification of a type of journalism, similar to other categorizations. Jettparmer (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2A: Yes, there are sources
2B: Yes, there are inline citations
2C: Sources do not support the article as a topic. Sources show usage of the term as a neologism. There are a number of statements which are not supported by sources. The article appears to be original research, and there is no evidence otherwise - indeed, the article is constructed as an argument that the term does convey a recent concept.
- Disagree - A neologism is a new word or phrase (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neologism), the article is classification of a type of journalism, similar to other categorizations. Article points out usage as classification device, vice a neologism Jettparmer (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3A/B: The article is constructed as an essay persuading the reader that the concept of "conspiracy journalism" exists and that the term is being used in the media.
- Disagree - At no point does the article advocate for the existence of the category. It seeks to frame and identify the usage in media and academic circles. Term is clearly in use.Jettparmer (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 Not applicable
- Disagree - Article contains no future speculation whatsoever. Jettparmer (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 Fail. The article was deleted after a discussion in which the only keep argument came from the originator and main contributor, User:Jettparmer. Jettparmer then asked for a deletion review, in which the decision was to endorse the deletion, though an offer was made to move the material to a subpage via either incubation or userfication. Jettparmer elected for incubation, though the article has not attracted attention from any other editor. As Jettparmer has moved the material to his userpage - User:Jettparmer#Conspiracy_Journalism - it is appropriate to take this page to WP:MfD. SilkTork *^YES! 17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - Material removed from user pages per WP:UserPage. Jettparmer (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and remove from Wikipedia - I participated in the MfD and was invited to add my thoughts in this AfD#2. "Conspiracy Journalism" is neologisms and there is not enough reliable source material to satisfy WP:GNG. The article violates No original research in that the article combines material from multiple web sources to reach the conclusion that Conspiracy Journalism represents a genre of journalism when the sources do not state that. The article lead states, "Conspiracy Journalism represents a genre of journalism that has elements of advocacy journalism, yellow journalism and investigative journalism." Books Ngram Viewer shows that, unlike advocacy journalism, yellow journalism, and investigative journalism mentioned in the conspiracy journalism article, the phrase 'conspiracy journalism' has had no noticeable usage through 2008. Moreover, there is no sense from the sources in the article that they are each talking about the same idea when they mention the phrase "Conspiracy Journalism". Conspiracy journalism is fast becoming the Rasputin of Wikipedia. Since its March 20, 2010 deletion, the material has been moved in the past nine months from article space-->AfD--> DRV-->Article Incubator-->MfD-->User space-->article space. No significant new information has come to light since March 20, 2010 to overcome the reasons for deletion at AfD#1. As noted in the collapsed template above, the November 28, 2010 Article Incubation assessment established that the deleted article had not proven useful to write a new article at Article Incubator. Delete and remove from Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This has been to AfD with only one keep !vote, which was from the author, Jettparmer, who then took it to DRV, where the delete was unanimously endorsed. The material was moved to the incubator, and Jettparmer also copied the material to his userpage. I evaluated it in the incubator and found it not to be an encyclopaedic article. As there were two versions on Wikipedia, I called an MfD, where there were five delete comments, and - again - only Jettparmer !voting to keep. This has taken up enough of our time and resources, so this should be the final discussion, and the title should be creation protected. This move to mainspace is against policy as the article has not significantly changed since the original AfD. I will discuss the matter with User:Cunard, as I think the more appropriate thing would be to speedy per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4. SilkTork *^YES! 12:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is still essentially just WP:OR. --Bejnar (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched Google for sources on this topic, but, suspiciously or otherwise, there are very very few.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Humor - Very funny, bravo! :-D Jettparmer (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite circumstantial claims of WP:OR, this article meets WP standards as encyclopedic. The term or categorization is in use within both popular and scholarly circles. Stating that the article is simply "essentially just OR" is highly subjective and unsupported in comparison to WP standards. Development of this article is warranted and suported by the simple presence of the term under a limited Google search. Jettparmer (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is explicit: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. That is not a particularly subjective standard. --Bejnar (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how there has been any synthesis. The term / categorization is used in numerous areas both in media, academia and popular sources from the UN in Africa to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The aim of the article is to catalog the term / classification detailed in these references and arrive at a proper encyclopedic entry for the term.Jettparmer (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and try again with actual references. There may be potential for an encyclopedic article but the references given do not support the present one. Only Ref 8 & 9 are RSs, and they discuss ordinary investigative journalism. The Gore Vidal article in the EL section does not use the term or otherwise support the article. The use of Ref. 6, though not a RS in any case, shows a misunderstanding : the reference does not say the Clinton administration committed or even encouraged conspiracy journalism, but asserts that Hilary Clinton and what they considered to be associated sources had falsely claimed that the Scaife Foundation was conducting conspiracy journalism against the administration. The p. cited from Brach do not support the use of the term The other sources are not reliable. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would submit that sources are both WP:RS and appropriate as they adequately and correctly frame the usage and validate its definition within popular media. The sources are as much for usage as content. It is not relevant whether Farah or the Clinton administration committed the act, but rather that the issue was framed by the category. The MRC reference was intended to demonstrate that common usage of the term exists and place it in the proper context. Am I missing something here? This is not an article to prove conspiracy journalism exists, but rather that a specific and unique category of this classification does. I am surprised why the SPLC reference, number 12, was classified as unreliable, this stikes me as a solid standard to support the article.Jettparmer (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2010 (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.