Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contrarian Journalism


 * 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. No reliable sources, original research, no expression of notability seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  16:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Contrarian Journalism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Very few ghits. Utterly irrelevant references. Essay. Fails WP:VER, WP:OR.

"Contrarian" is merely an unusual adjective rather than a proper genre such as "Sports journalism" - it's something that any journalist might do from time to time.

It should ideally be redirected to the main article on Contrarianism, except there isn't one. andy (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I trust this is the place to respond to your comments.

Clearly you know next to nothing about journalism or its styles (contrarianism would not be regarded by most journalists as a genre). Contrarian is not an unsual adjective in journalism (and it's primarily a noun by the way). If you think any journalist might "do" contrarian articles from time to time, you clearly know little about what they do.

If you think this is orginal research, then I suspect you've done little of that too. There are a few illustrations referenced for the interest of the reader. They do not mean the article is guilty of being original research.

I admit the article could edited to improve its wikiness, but I thought that was the way the Wiki process works, rather than having a wiki priest simply point the bone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillairs (talk • contribs) 10:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - actually I was a journalist for 17 years and used to teach it at postgraduate level. Your comment on the article's talk page together with the article itself indicates that you believe it to be a genre. "Contrarianism" is simply a technique employed by most journalists throughout their careers and some journalists all the time - and this article is not about that technique. Also, please read the policies at WP:OR and WP:VER. andy (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article looks like original research, and has no verifiability. The references given are pretty much unrelated to the article (such as the definition, which we should note doesn't even mention journalism), or are used to reference very specific factoids and not the actual article.  The article is synthesis and original research.  Beyond that, if this is so important to journalism, why isn't there some kind of meaningful reference from journalism textbooks or journals?  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly the delete advocates have done no reasearch on the subject whatsoever, assuming they would understand what they're reading anyway. Daniel Schorr, probably they have never heard of him either, is a journalist discribed as a Contrarian's Contrarian, and has written volumes on the subject, including a book on the subject. Numerous examples can be found ... 'Why the Wired West still matters - Personal media, contrarian journalism provide counterweights to Eastern media's groupthink - This column appeared April 30, 2002, in the Online Journalism'. You must remember that the bulk of those favoring deletion of articles are themselves not contributors, but rather engage in searches for new articles to remove from WP as an excercise in self gratification. Sadly admins that do the final deletion simply count deletion votes, having no better means of determining the worth of the information. DasV (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - given the somewhat aggressive tone of this editor's contribution it's worth noting that he has recently been warned for personal attacks, 3RR and trolling. He seems to have something against Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth, who I suspect is the subject of his comments about ignorant editors. andy (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, the issues of verifiability and original research haven't been addressed. "Contrarian" is simply an adjective. andy (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually it is a general fact that those voting for deletion of articles usually have no familiarity with the material they propose to delete. If it is aggressive to poiint this out that is a reflection on those who defend the propriety to do so. Had the commentator bothered to look he would have found that the warnings for personal attacks followed personal attacks by others, which were objected to; including remarks to the effect that I was insane. But then I guess such remarks when made by others should be ignored. The so-called trolling was no more than a clarification of a personal attack by someone else, which was without rancor. The 3RR was incorrect, a modified version was inserted; the editor claiming 3RR did not bother to read the changes, and restored the version. There was no statement regarding ignorant editors or the editor named. This is all off point. The fact is Contrarian Journalism is a type of journalism which the article describes. It does not warrant deletion. Certainly not by people who do not understand the topic. Nevertheless, such is the workings of WP. I believe it would be better to demonstrate some actual problem with the article than to discuss my faults. DasV (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is an actual problem with the article: failure of two WP policies. If you can provide adequate references please do so and I'll withdraw my nomination. BTW I do understand the topic - as I said, I have both worked as a journalist and taught at postgraduate level. I've not come across the term and neither, judging from the very low number of ghits, have many other people. Please address the real shortcomings of this article rather than the imagined shortcomings of other editors. andy (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Simple ... do a search for Contrarian Journalism. It should be, but it is not, for those voting for deletion to overcome the presumption that the article has value ... else why would someone take the time to compose it? What exactly are they selling with this article?? DasV (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Andy: you say that DasV's comment are "somewhat aggressive". They didn't strike me as aggressive but how did you think I would find your comments? Your comments were, to say the least, terse, and encased in jargon you assume I should understand to participate in the Wiki process. To be frank, I found this intimidatory?


 * But back to the point: in your most recent comment you repeat your request for references but do not specifically address what is wrong with the Daniel Schorr reference. The point of the article is that contrarian journalism is emerging as a style of journalism.  In the past there have been a few  contrarians but it is growing along with the increasing diversity in media. Your assertion that most journalists have indulged in contrarianism is not backed by anything other than your claim that you have been a working journalist and teacher of journalism. In my experience most working journalists spend their lives toeing editorial lines or, when they tire of this, find themselves in the PR industry which is like moving from purgatory to hell.


 * To sum up: you mentioned two policies but provided no specifics other than the lack of references to contrarian journalism. Then, when I addressed this with the Daniel Schorr reference, you simply repeated the reference to the two policies.

Fillairs (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: You said in your last edit "when I addressed this with the Daniel Schorr reference" but in fact that reference was made by DasV. Are you the same person? andy (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Fillairs (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Fillairs (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer No I was referring to a revised version of the article, which DasV had read, but you had apparently not seen. You can see the revised version under My Contributions.  This is my first venture into Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how the process works.  If the original article is deleted, what happens to the revised version? I was invited to revise it, which is what I did.
 * NoteThe revised version was submitted 08:19 23 January 2009
 * I can't see any such reference there. Please give the url of this reference. andy (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   —andy (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   —andy (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete just original research from start to finish - "Those people fit the definition I made up, therefore the definition I made up is real". --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - In its original state it read as a personal essay with original research and synthesis of various sources into a whole somewhat less than the sum of its parts. To claim Muggeridge as a "contrarian journalist" there needs to be at least one reliable source which covers this as more than a passing mention. In its current state, as I write this, it is a dictionary definition for a neologism. Neither form belongs in an encyclopaedia. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:Original research. The present version of the article has no sources at all. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable phrase. 44 ghits .  Baileypalblue (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All the issues raised for Deletion are simply buggaboos from wandering deletists, and completely ignore the fact that reputable and famous journalists are known for 'contrarian journalism', which the article explains. 'Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. Mark Twain' Deletists are the dogmatists of Wikipedia. DasV (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete if i get called a contrarian and simple bugaboo with wandering deletist intentions of steak-filled, Twain-esque dogmatism once more, i might change my vote. also, does not pass WP:N nor WP:RS Theserialcomma (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Euthyphro is perfectly certain of his own ethical rectitude even in morally ambiguous situations. Yet he is also unable to define what "piety" (moral duty) really is. DasV (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You understand that without any reliable sources, this article will be deleted? You are wasting your time arguing with all and sundry here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no argument. Sources were provided and discounted. Anyone with NPOV could find similar sources and improve the article. That is not the purpose here. DasV (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as an obvious conjunction of the words "contrarian" and "journalism", with nothing more to say than that. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 25 January 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.