Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/View from nowhere

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 KEEP. Spinning Spark 15:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

View from nowhere[edit]

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

Blog-specific term co-opted from one otherwise-nonnoteworthy academic term. Used plenty on blogs, but not much exists to support it as an actual article worthy of inclusion.

The term did not originate on blogs. It started with a 1989 book my Thomas Nagel which I have added to a new "Further reading" section. I wonder if there should be one article for both the book and the term, or if The View from Nowhere should be a different article on the book. EllenCT (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - View from nowhere#References includes articles from Margaret Sullivan (journalist) (the New York Times Public Editor, writing as such), Jay Rosen (frequently syndicated NYU journalism professor), Glenn Greenwald (a "top 10" opinion journalist per Newsweek writing in The Guardian), Mathew Ingram (GigaOm), Conor Friedersdorf (The Atlantic), Susan Madrak (Crooks and Liars), and other nationally known journalists. Plus there are at least 60 Google News items. Therefore I believe the term is notable. EllenCT (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of those article are about the term? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - [1], [2], and [3] mention it in their titles. [4] mentions it in a heading. [5] cites the Nagel book and quotes a paragraph by Rosen near the top. EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1. 1 is a blog from the guy who came up with the term. 2 and 3 are blogs. 4 is not about the view from nowhere, but rather a basic media criticism. 5 is also sourced directly to the guy who came up with the term. The book in question is a philosophy book, not a book on the media. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... - The article as it stands is rather unsatisfactory. It gives very little context, covering only the recent use of the concept in relation to journalism and not its longer, and probably rather more notable, academic use. Also, it was created completely unreferenced, with the creator only coming back months later to provide references which are still not properly integrated into the article. However, enough of the references (the Greenwald article in The Guardian, the Friedersdorf one in The Atlantic and the Sullivan one in the NYT, at least) are reliable enough to show notability, and the Jay Rosen ones quite likely would be if they weren't primary as regards journalistic discussion of the concept (or at least the term). However, having said that, Sullivan, while referring to Rosen, actually talks about the topic as false balance, and in journalistic arguments, the two concepts do appear to be almost identical. The only reason I am not suggesting a merger is the prior use of the concept in academic discussion - see the GBooks link for several hundred examples. It should be perfectly possible to rewrite the article to be properly sourced and to cover both the original academic concept and its journalistic development. PWilkinson (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 02:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a mildly interesting rehtorical device, and a useful summary of something a lot of people in journalism need to think about. Too useful to delete--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But where are the independent sources about it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know. Ask the authors. I am a satisfied user.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2013 (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.