Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 March 24. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy journalism[edit]
- Conspiracy journalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This topic is not notable, at best.
A search for "Conspiracy journalism" at educational sites, using ":edu" returns only two links. One is dead, and the other goes to a post at a mailing list. A search for "Conspiracy journalism" at Amazon returns only three links, one user-generated reading list and two user-generated tags.
The first listed source is Paranoia Magazine, which is not authoritative about journalism (its reliability or not on any other topic is a different matter). Its second source is to a lecture. Apart from anything else, lectures aren't normally published, and thus cannot be verified. Etc. Maurreen (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Other sources cited have axes to grid, such as the MRC. The topic may, in the future, arise to encyclopedic status, but the current article seems more of an attack on 9/11 Truth movement and others than an objective treatment. Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, as well as WP:OR and as an attack article. --Bejnar (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research, patent nonsense. -- Calicocat
- KEEP Term appears in scholarly publications, notable for possible coinage via Adam Ellick. Given the speed of the internet and controversey of this topic, recommend refinement and review. Althoug examples via truther movement are cited, they are simply the most convenient and readily available. Phrase appears in discussions and characterizations of all manner of journalism across the web. Far from WP:OR, this represnets a capturing and cataloging of an externally defined view of journalism. Jettparmer (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I await any such scholarly sources. In the meantime, I just searched for "Conspiracy journalism" at the sites of the Columbia Journalism Review, the American Journalism Review, and the Poynter Institute. I found nothing. (AJR and CJR are the two leading print periodicals about journalism in the United States. The Poynter Institute is a major U.S. journalism organization, focusing on midcareer traning but doing other work also. At least within the United States, it is probably the most dominant Web site about journalism.) Further, about speed of the topic being an issue, WP:NOTNEWS. Maurreen (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like there is more and more usage of the phrase Conspiracy Journalism. I encourage you to visit Mr. Ellick's site - he may have coined the phrase with his 2004 lecture. As he is a respeted NYT journalist, I would count that as good. I would also consider Pulitzer Prize Winner, Jonathan Yardley's use of the term in the November 2006 Smithsonian as certain validation.Jettparmer (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I await any such scholarly sources. In the meantime, I just searched for "Conspiracy journalism" at the sites of the Columbia Journalism Review, the American Journalism Review, and the Poynter Institute. I found nothing. (AJR and CJR are the two leading print periodicals about journalism in the United States. The Poynter Institute is a major U.S. journalism organization, focusing on midcareer traning but doing other work also. At least within the United States, it is probably the most dominant Web site about journalism.) Further, about speed of the topic being an issue, WP:NOTNEWS. Maurreen (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ellick's lecture is apparently not published, and thus not a source for WP purposes. Yardley's mention is at least in a more-respected publication than the others. But Yardley only mentions "conspiracy journalism." WP:N calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources," which has not been demonstrated. Maurreen (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Compromise potential? -- Given the meager number of participants at this AFD, it seems unlikely that a consensus will be declared either way. Can you think of some other title that does not imply that "conspiracy journalism" is on a par with, for example, "business journalism"? Some title that would not imply "conspiracy journalism" is a recognized branch of journalism? Maurreen (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can not think of another title which conveys the proper categorization of this aspect of journalism. Although the title may seem negative in connotation - it is extremely specific in identifying the nature of this type of journalism. There is a category of journalism which exists and is expressed through various outlets (Nation of Islam's the Call, the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight and others) which are directly promoting a conspiracy viewpoint. This is certainly not advocacy journalism or investigative journalism, although it reflects a subset of the two. I would think some survey of curricula of top journalism schools may help, but then we start to wander down the WP:OR rabbit hole. Perhaps we would be better served by soliciting help in improving the article.Jettparmer (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For reasons unrelated to WP, I have surveyed curricula at top journalism schools some and saw nothing like this. But I still see no "significant coverage in reliable sources." The most-reputable sources that you indicate only mention the topic, which is insufficient. Maurreen (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think this is covered in journalism school, the best place to find it might be textbooks that survey mass media studies. Maurreen (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Jettparmer gives two references with no sources and does not give citations to where those mentioned used the term. That aside, the article itself does not substantiate the validity of the supposed genre, so it's kind of sounding like the fallacy of argument from authority, rather than actual reasons for keeping the article. Calicocat (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So aside from Calicocat's displeasure with the comprehensiveness of this article, let's examine a few facts. The phrase "conspiracy journalism" is used repeatedly and profusely throughout the internet. The term seems to have a commonly understood definition by the users, from all sides of the political / ideological spectrum. There are a number of usages of this word by respected authors and researchers. I regret not being able to pin down the text of Ellick's lecture, as I think this is seminal. There are strong reasons to keep the article, mostly that there appears to be an issue worthy of placing into the encyclopedic repository of Wikipedia. Jettparmer (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Jettparmer gives two references with no sources and does not give citations to where those mentioned used the term. That aside, the article itself does not substantiate the validity of the supposed genre, so it's kind of sounding like the fallacy of argument from authority, rather than actual reasons for keeping the article. Calicocat (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think this is covered in journalism school, the best place to find it might be textbooks that survey mass media studies. Maurreen (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For reasons unrelated to WP, I have surveyed curricula at top journalism schools some and saw nothing like this. But I still see no "significant coverage in reliable sources." The most-reputable sources that you indicate only mention the topic, which is insufficient. Maurreen (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can not think of another title which conveys the proper categorization of this aspect of journalism. Although the title may seem negative in connotation - it is extremely specific in identifying the nature of this type of journalism. There is a category of journalism which exists and is expressed through various outlets (Nation of Islam's the Call, the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight and others) which are directly promoting a conspiracy viewpoint. This is certainly not advocacy journalism or investigative journalism, although it reflects a subset of the two. I would think some survey of curricula of top journalism schools may help, but then we start to wander down the WP:OR rabbit hole. Perhaps we would be better served by soliciting help in improving the article.Jettparmer (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{od}]
- Which of your citations do you consider to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources? It is not indicated by use "repeatedly and profusely throughout the internet." And if such use was actually throughout the Internet, why were my focused findings above so minimal? That is, nothing substantive on Amazon, educational sites, or three major U.S. sites about journalism.
- Regardless of the usage of the phrase, there is a difference between an article about a phrase and an article about a practice. This article appears intended to be about the practice. I would be more open to an article about the phrase.
- About "a commonly understood definition by the users, from all sides of the political / ideological spectrum." I don't see any of that as relevant. WP is not a dictionary. "The users" appear connected only in that they use the term. Politics might have some bearing regarding conspiracies, but political views are not inherently meaningful about journalism. Maurreen (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On further examination, it appears that of all your citations (reliable or not), the only one to give significant coverage is a lecture, which is apparently unpublished and thus immaterial for WP purposes. Maurreen (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I acknowledge that your external links section includes a paper that appears to give significant coverage. It also appears to be a student paper, based on the URL. The paper itself doesn't indicate who it's by or the context under which it was produced. Maurreen (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On looking again, the paper is even less worthy for the purpose at hand. The paper is about a documentary. The paper only uses the phrase once. Maurreen (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The paper is unsigned and I have been unable to locate the author's name or the course for which it was written. You seem to have a lot of animosity towards the very subject of this topic. If you google the phrase "conspiracy journalism", you will come up with a host of direct references, all of which are consistent in their usage. It strikes me as the phrase "political correctness", it exists - it's simply understood by fiat. The quality of my sourcing may not be the best - but that's what wikipedia is for - evolution of the understanding. Thus, deletion would seem counter to its purpose. Jettparmer (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What Wikipedia is for is based on Wikipedia:Notability. Maurreen (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The paper is unsigned and I have been unable to locate the author's name or the course for which it was written. You seem to have a lot of animosity towards the very subject of this topic. If you google the phrase "conspiracy journalism", you will come up with a host of direct references, all of which are consistent in their usage. It strikes me as the phrase "political correctness", it exists - it's simply understood by fiat. The quality of my sourcing may not be the best - but that's what wikipedia is for - evolution of the understanding. Thus, deletion would seem counter to its purpose. Jettparmer (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On looking again, the paper is even less worthy for the purpose at hand. The paper is about a documentary. The paper only uses the phrase once. Maurreen (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I acknowledge that your external links section includes a paper that appears to give significant coverage. It also appears to be a student paper, based on the URL. The paper itself doesn't indicate who it's by or the context under which it was produced. Maurreen (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Original research. Poor sources do not support the very existence of the article. Find better sources or delete. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 20 March 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.