626:. 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 Knowledge (XXG), 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
813:
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.
360:
348:
331:
270:
319:
303:
382:
374:
282:
785:
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
724:, 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.
745:
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
608:
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
812:
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.
762:
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
424:
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
784:
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
592:
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
507:
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 -
197:
594:
73:
166:
597:
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
593:
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,
200:
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
496:
202:
68:
127:
160:
457:- 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.
451:
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.
504:
435:), the article is classification of a type of journalism, similar to other categorizations. Article points out usage as classification device, vice a neologism
206:
581:
100:
95:
635:
104:
87:
822:
800:
772:
757:
733:
710:
693:
672:
651:
618:
571:
550:
529:
488:
466:
444:
411:
218:
52:
17:
602:
of
Knowledge (XXG). Since its March 20, 2010 deletion, the material has been moved in the past nine months from article space--: -->
181:
325:
148:
402:- A neologism is a new word or phrase, the article is classification of a type of journalism, similar to other categorizations.
248:
789:
the administration. The p. cited from Brach do not support the use of the term The other sources are not reliable.
839:
309:
142:
36:
290:
138:
91:
838:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
188:
83:
58:
580:- I participated in the MfD and was invited to add my thoughts in this AfD#2. "Conspiracy Journalism" is
354:
538:
313:
818:
768:
729:
706:
614:
546:
484:
462:
440:
407:
174:
154:
393:
368:
297:
648:
631:
563:
526:
210:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
339:
753:
681:
668:
599:
567:
214:
746:
be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.
585:
513:
264:
814:
764:
725:
702:
610:
542:
509:
500:
480:
458:
436:
403:
49:
809:
740:
721:
660:
589:
198:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article
Incubator/Conspiracy journalism
432:
257:
796:
686:
641:
519:
121:
749:
664:
499:
in which the only keep argument came from the originator and main contributor,
791:
609:
article at
Article Incubator. Delete and remove from Knowledge (XXG). --
276:
832:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
634:, as I think the more appropriate thing would be to speedy per
595:
the phrase 'conspiracy journalism' has had no noticeable usage
396:, which is a specific policy forbidding this sort of article
584:
and there is not enough reliable source material to satisfy
503:. Jettparmer then asked for a deletion review, in which the
74:
Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination)
203:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism
389:
1A: There is no significant coverage in reliable sources
630:
since the original AfD. I will discuss the matter with
627:
117:
113:
109:
479:- Article contains no future speculation whatsoever.
173:
680:: I searched Google for sources on this topic, but,
763:
arrive at a proper encyclopedic entry for the term.
433:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neologism
187:
748:That is not a particularly subjective standard. --
207:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2010 March 24
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
842:). No further edits should be made to this page.
636:Knowledge (XXG):Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4
345:A. It is a fair representation without bias:
8:
425:that the term does convey a recent concept.
392:1B: No specific guideline - but comes under
69:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism
231:Discussion about suitability as an article
226:
512:- it is appropriate to take this page to
684:or otherwise, there are very very few.--
495:5 Fail. The article was deleted after a
808:- I would submit that sources are both
537:- Material removed from user pages per
431:- A neologism is a new word or phrase (
66:
659:The article is still essentially just
578:Delete and remove from Knowledge (XXG)
510:User:Jettparmer#Conspiracy_Journalism
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
421:2B: Yes, there are inline citations
223:From the talk page of the article:
65:
24:
720:Despite circumstantial claims of
380:
372:
358:
346:
329:
317:
301:
280:
268:
381:
379:Pass, Fail or Hold for 7 days:
373:
281:
1:
823:20:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
801:02:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
773:20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
758:23:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
734:18:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
711:20:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
694:18:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
673:15:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
652:12:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
619:11:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
572:10:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
551:02:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
530:17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
489:02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
467:02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
445:02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
412:02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
219:10:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
53:21:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
359:
347:
330:
318:
302:
269:
265:general notability guideline
256:Does the article establish
859:
418:2A: Yes, there are sources
353:B. It is written in a non-
277:subject specific guideline
701:- Very funny, bravo! :-D
628:not significantly changed
275:B. It meets any relevant
835:Please do not modify it.
605:Article Incubator--: -->
588:. The article violates
369:unverifiable speculation
32:Please do not modify it.
64:AfDs for this article:
298:references to sources
84:Conspiracy journalism
59:Conspiracy journalism
590:No original research
367:It does not contain
326:no original research
249:Article incubation
44:The result was
692:
607:User space--: -->
560:
559:
473:4 Not applicable
316:where necessary:
260:of the subject ?
850:
837:
691:
650:
644:
528:
522:
384:
383:
376:
375:
362:
361:
350:
349:
333:
332:
321:
320:
314:reliable sources
310:inline citations
305:
304:
284:
283:
272:
271:
263:A. It meets the
227:
192:
191:
177:
125:
107:
34:
858:
857:
853:
852:
851:
849:
848:
847:
846:
840:deletion review
833:
642:
639:
624:Delete and salt
561:
520:
517:
501:User:Jettparmer
296:A. It contains
232:
134:
98:
82:
79:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
856:
854:
845:
844:
828:
827:
826:
825:
778:
777:
776:
775:
737:
736:
715:
714:
713:
675:
654:
621:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
493:
492:
491:
471:
470:
469:
449:
448:
447:
422:
419:
416:
415:
414:
390:
386:
385:
377:
365:
364:
363:
351:
336:
335:
334:
322:
306:
287:
286:
285:
273:
245:
244:
243:
242:
234:
233:
230:
225:
195:
194:
131:
78:
77:
76:
71:
63:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
855:
843:
841:
836:
830:
829:
824:
820:
816:
811:
807:
804:
803:
802:
798:
794:
793:
788:
783:
780:
779:
774:
770:
766:
761:
760:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:is explicit:
742:
739:
738:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
697:
696:
695:
689:
688:
683:
679:
676:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
653:
649:
646:
645:
637:
633:
629:
625:
622:
620:
616:
612:
601:
596:
591:
587:
583:
579:
576:
575:
574:
573:
569:
565:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
533:
532:
531:
527:
524:
523:
515:
511:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
475:
474:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
453:
452:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
427:
426:
423:
420:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
398:
397:
395:
391:
388:
387:
378:
370:
366:
356:
352:
344:
343:
341:
337:
327:
323:
315:
311:
308:B. There are
307:
299:
295:
294:
292:
288:
278:
274:
266:
262:
261:
259:
255:
254:
253:
252:
250:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
229:
228:
224:
221:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
199:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
129:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
75:
72:
70:
67:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
834:
831:
805:
790:
786:
781:
744:
717:
698:
685:
682:suspiciously
677:
656:
640:
623:
577:
562:
534:
518:
476:
454:
428:
399:
324:C. There is
247:
246:
222:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
45:
43:
31:
28:
632:User:Cunard
539:WP:UserPage
355:promotional
161:free images
815:Jettparmer
765:Jettparmer
726:Jettparmer
703:Jettparmer
611:Uzma Gamal
606:MfD--: -->
604:DRV--: -->
603:AfD--: -->
582:neologisms
543:Jettparmer
497:discussion
481:Jettparmer
459:Jettparmer
437:Jettparmer
404:Jettparmer
291:verifiable
258:notability
251:assessment
241:Assessment
50:Courcelles
394:WP:NOTNEO
782:Delete,
687:Milowent
643:SilkTork
600:Rasputin
521:SilkTork
505:decision
477:Disagree
455:Disagree
429:Disagree
400:Disagree
357:manner:
128:View log
806:Comment
787:against
340:neutral
167:WP refs
155:scholar
101:protect
96:history
750:Bejnar
678:Delete
665:Bejnar
657:Delete
586:WP:GNG
564:Cunard
535:Update
514:WP:MfD
338:Is it
289:Is it
211:Cunard
139:Google
105:delete
46:delete
810:WP:RS
797:talk
741:WP:OR
722:WP:OR
699:Humor
661:WP:OR
182:JSTOR
143:books
122:views
114:watch
110:links
16:<
819:talk
769:talk
754:talk
730:talk
718:Keep
707:talk
669:talk
663:. --
615:talk
568:talk
547:talk
485:talk
463:talk
441:talk
408:talk
215:talk
205:and
175:FENS
149:news
118:logs
92:talk
88:edit
792:DGG
312:of
189:TWL
126:– (
821:)
799:)
771:)
756:)
732:)
709:)
690:•
671:)
638:.
617:)
570:)
549:)
541:.
516:.
487:)
465:)
443:)
410:)
371::
342:?
328::
300::
293:?
279::
267::
217:)
209:.
169:)
120:|
116:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
48:.
817:(
795:(
767:(
752:(
728:(
705:(
667:(
647:*
613:(
566:(
545:(
525:*
483:(
461:(
439:(
406:(
213:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
124:)
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.