Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Churnalism


 * 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.

Churnalism
The result was   Keep. Icestorm815 •  Talk  04:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nonnotable neologism based upon extremely limited number of sources for something of this nature. Tags for cleanup, etc., been upf or a while without improvement. DreamGuy (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources demonstrate the notability of the topic which is increasingly noteworthy as the traditional newspapers feel increasing economic strain and so cut back upon journalists. And at least one book has been written upon the topic.  The title might be improved but I have yet to think of a good alternative which is not a clumsy phrase such as Journalism based upon press-releases and wire services.  Suggestions are welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The term is often mentioned in news media, blogs, and on the web, but all of the mentions that I have looked at amount to either discussions of Nick Davies's work or allusions to such discussions. That said, I am neutral toward deletion. This may turn out to be notable either as a concept discussed by journalists or media critics, or as an historical pointer to such discussions at one moment. Cnilep (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep well referenced article. Re: "Tags for cleanup, etc., been upf or a while without improvement." an AfD is not the place to clean up an article, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. 13,500 articles on google, the first is BBC, second in Guardian; 68 google news hits in including Globe and mail, The Australian; 39 google books including a handbook on journalism. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Have heard this phenomenon mentioned several times before. Ive added another reference to the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ikip. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Ikip pointed out, it's become a recognized term and has been used in many reputable sources, including books and newspapers.  Graymornings (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow keep Recognized term in WIDE common usage., , .  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism of no established independent notability by the sources provided. Not that anyone has reason to believe me, but i worked as a hack in Asia, Europea, North America and the Middle East for 15 years (ending last year) and have never heard this term uttered in any context. Once it's deleted redirect it to Journalism ethics and standards.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. As Cnilep points out, nearly all references mention the coining by Nick Davies, which strongly implies that this is both new (as in NEOlogism) and not yet widely accepted as a word that people are expected to recognise. It may become widely used, but more likely will die out as memory of Davies' book fades. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NEO is a style guideline not a content guideline. In other ways, it's telling how to write about topics, rather than which topics should be covered.  Please see WP:NEO for its advice in such a case - it recommends retitling rather than deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think WP:NEO is the more appropriate section here. I have no issue with the title, just the notability of the content. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The points made in that section are not applicable here. In particular, the article is not a dictionary entry, having no special focus upon the word and I am quite willing to change the title.  And the article contains numerous references to reliable sources - better than you'll find in the similar articles like Embedded journalism, Gonzo journalism or Investigative journalism.  These are all phrases of recent provenance but this is irrelevant - what matters is whether there is a substantive topic, whatever one calls it.  Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On both Neo pages it says: "This page in a nutshell: A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." There are abundant mainstream sources on this term.  And while its true many mention Davies, many do not and use the term without explaining it, implying the authors expect it to be well understood.  e.g. this article from the Independent  As the Colonel's explained there is no elegant alternative term or phrase to describe this growing phenomena - in my view usage of the term 'Churnalism' is likely to become even more widespread, and anyway is already too well accepted for it to class as a neo. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.