Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovation 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   no consensus. Essentially a lack of discussion. No prejudice against a speedy renomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Innovation journalism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is a non-notable neologism used only by a few sources who are the creators of the neologism. OpenFuture (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Further research indicates that no only is David Nordfors, the self-proclaimed creator of this neologism one of the main authors, the IP creator of the article comes from Stanford University, the workplace of Mr Nordfors. It's hard to see this article as something else than an attempt to popularize the neologism. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but stub I get enough GBook hits mentioning this to be convinced that people in the field hold it to be a real thing. The problem is that our article was clearly written partly by Nordfors and more so by a Finnish IP with a clear connection to another work in the field. Mangoe (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge the one key point into Innovation communication systems if you must. As much as I read, I quickly came to the conclusion this article is a fancy name for Yellow journalism. Innovation journalism could be cited there as the modern day version. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, not *another one* of Nordfors vanity articles. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Editors - Yes, I participated in writing these articles, but more people were involved than me. The Innovation Journalism initiative started in 2004 and has had many participants and several national programs. A quick search on the web should be enough for you to confirm this fact. How OpenFuture comes to the conclusion that innovation journalism is yellow journalism is a mystery. Please show evidence for this theory. OpenFuture seems to be a native Swede. A large number of journalists in Sweden have been part of this initiative, it is a well known initiative among journalists. I suggest you read this 2010 press release from the journalism department of the Linne University, saying explicitly that they have an innovation journalism project. Here is a recent conference where the Linne University again present innovation journalism.  It is also know among journalists in other countries. I can share more links if you wish. I happen to be Swedish, like OpenFuture. Perhaps we even know each other, although I don't know because OpenMind does not reveal his/her name. There seems to be a personal disliking involved in this discussion. The 'oh no, not another one of Nordfors vanity articles' is an insulting comment. I'd appreciate an apology. Perhaps that kind of comment comes easier when writing under pseudonym.   --dnordfors (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Dispute resolution Let's have a dispute resolution in this matter.--dnordfors (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Innovation Journalism Finnish Wikipedia entry There is also a finnish wikipedia entry http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovaatiojournalismi --dnordfors (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you have not read what I wrote particularly carefully, you mix me up with somebody else and you seem to think that this somehow is an issue about you personally. No, I don't know you and have never met you. This is not about you, it is about the article. I've noticed that there are several articles about you and your topics, that are to a large part edited by you. These articles, like the article about you that was recently deleted, are to a significant aspect edited by you, and sourced by you to your own publications. The articles seem self-serving and aimed at increasing the spread and usage of the neologisms in question. (You can hardly deny that InJo and Innovation Journalism are neologisms, the article clearly states that you suggested the concepts yourself). The evidence that these articles should continue to exist is far between.
 * It is also completely obvious that you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing ANY of these articles, and despite being notified of this, you continue to do so, in violation of Wikipedia policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So it this is not a personal topic, why are you discussing me and not Innovation Journalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnordfors (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you want to delete the Innovation Journalism page, regardless the standing of the topic. It's all about my participation in editing it. It has been edited by several people. --dnordfors (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not discussion you. A part of this topic is the fact that you edit these pages despite the conflict of interest. That is not about you. It is about the articles. You need to understand that neither this AfD, nor these articles, nor Wikipedia in general is about you. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is not about me, what do you mean by saying "Oh no! Not *another one* of Nordfors vanity articles"? This is not about me? --dnordfors (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about you. It's about the articles. If you create a vanity article, then it's still not about you, it's still about the article. There are a lot of articles about more or less the same topic, edited to significant extend by you, all claiming you as the inventor of the term and using mostly you as a source. I think the term "vanity article" is fitting. And that's a description of the article (as evidenced by the term vanity *article*) and not a description of you. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Vanity article gets no hits on Wikipedia. It seems to allude to vanity press which is pejorative. The exclamation "Oh no! *not another*" is not nice. I am insulted by it. I don't understand what is achieved by using such language.Now, I am putting my real name on this discussion. What is your real name? --dnordfors (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Dispute Resolution Initiated To stop this from escalating, I have requested a dispute resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Innovation_Journalism --dnordfors (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Focus on Content The page on Dispute Resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution suggests to focus on content. Sounds like a good idea. OpenFuture - I suggest we discuss Innovation Journalism as a topic. Thereafter we may discuss who should be doing what. Please look at the article and say what you think about the Innovation Journalism as content. What - contentwise - is missing, if anything? If the content is OK, we can address the allegated conflict of interest. In nothing else, someone (not me) might rework the article. That should solve any conflict of interest considerations. --dnordfors (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, so discussing Innovation journalism is pointless. The discussions are about the articles. This is always what I have discussed, and nothing else, and I will not discuss anything else. What, contentwise, is missing is stated in the AfD: "This is a non-notable neologism used only by a few sources who are the creators of the neologism." Hence, what is needed is third-party sources showing notability. Is there for example any reliable sources from major news outlets about this topic?
 * You need to remember that as the originator of the term this is likely to be a very personal issue close to your heart. For Wikipedia it is not. You need to try to step outside of yourself and see this objectively.
 * For example, of the current sources, three are by you. Those are obviously not third-party sources. One is published by "Innovation Journalism", a publication I can't find any information about, but whose website now turns out to be your blog. This is clearly not a third-party source. One is about a pilot course on Innovation Journalism, a course which you according to the paper visited, was held by somebody you worked with at Stanford and who has as one of three aims to "establish international co-operation in InJo education between The Department of Communication (University of Jyväskylä) and SCIL (Stanford University)". This is also obviously no an independent source.
 * None of the above sources therefor help to establish notability. One of the last two sources is a dead link, so it doesn't help either.
 * That leaves one source. Unfortunately, it's in German, so it's very hard to judge it if you don't speak German.
 * I really don't think this establishes the notability of this term very well at all. Would you think differently if this was another topic? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OpenFuture - I will respond to matters relating to notability here. The matters you bring up about conflict of interest are addressed under "Disclosure / Conflict of Interest". Let's please separate between these two issues.
 * Examples of third party sources:
 * World Economic Forum - one of the seven listed topics setting the agenda for the future of media: https://members.weforum.org/pdf/GAC/issue_descriptions/FutureofMedia.pdf
 * SAAMA TV Pakistan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj1BkuX6AwE
 * Voice of America News (in Urdu) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyTIZO0RdrI
 * PBS feature - http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2009/12/stanford-program-breaks-down-walls-between-business-tech-journalism344.html
 * Fojo - Linnaeus University in Kalmar - http://lnu.se/1.32367/fojo-focus-on-innovation-journalism?l=en
 * Venturebeat: http://venturebeat.com/2008/03/29/qa-with-david-nordfors-on-innovation-journalism-audio/
 * European Journalism Centre http://www.ejc.net/magazine/article/innovation_journalism_copyright_and_commons/
 * NDTV Profit India http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CPBz9ET0-k
 * I can give more examples if requested.
 * The innovation journalism journal was started by me in 2004.It is indexed by Google Scholar.The managing editor is Kirsten Mogensen at Roskilde University in Denmark. IJ has a panel of reviewers: http://journal.innovationjournalism.org/p/review-committee.html
 * --dnordfors (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't have time right now, and since I've already been forced to waste hours on nonsense, I can't look at these sources in any depth now, nor for several days. It is obvious even at a brief glance that they at the minimum are vast improvements to what you have provided so far, in that the at least are one step removed from you, where the previous sources where not. I can't say anything about how they fulfill wp:rs at the moment. Youtube videos generally make poor sources, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Disclosure / Conflict of Interest Noleanders comments on the dispute resolution page are helpful. The originator has the right to edit the article as long as the statements are supported by a valid source. It is reasonable to ask for disclosure. I am willing to provide that. Does this solve the Conflict of Interest issue? We need to separate the discussions around alleged conflict of interest and notability. Lets discuss notability under "Focus on Content". Let's discuss conflict of interest issues here. --dnordfors (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture - You bring up some issues relating to conflict of interest in your comment posted 19:33.
 * Your comment on how the originator should think is off-topic unless you are referring to me. Since you are saying this discussion is not about me I will not comment.
 * You ask if I would think differently if this was another topic? This is again about me, but I will answer. The answer is no. I would think the same.I would appreciate disclosure, but as long as the references are OK, it really doesn't matter who wrote it.--dnordfors (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, let's not discuss it here. This article is called "Articles for deletion/Innovation journalism". The topic is if the article Innovation journalism should be deleted. A topic that has been notably absent in most of your comments here. Discuss conflicts of interest on your page, the article page or on the relevant noticeboard, please. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture - I understand you are saying that the allegations of "conflict of interest" are no longer on the agenda. This is only about "notability". Correct? --dnordfors (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what I wrote that is unclear. I'm sorry, I really don't have the time to waste on this, I've already wasted my whole evening on it, and will not respond to anything that is not strictly on topic from now on. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very simple. Just confirm that "conflict of interest" is no longer being discussed. A simple 'yes' is enough. --dnordfors (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - The term "innovation journalism" is mentioned by quite a few secondary sources. I see 51,000 hits on google; between 100 and 200 on Google Books; and 341 on Google Scholar.  One writes "Lately, she has been a visiting scholar at the Innovation Journalism program at Stanford University, California. .." indicating the Standford University has some interest in this (as well as the European connections that are more predominant).  Granted this is a very recent field of study, and the term was only invented in  2004.  If the term were used only by blogs & children, maybe it would not meet notability requirements, but - to the contrary - it is used primarily by academic sources which are precisely the high-quality sources WP prefers.   Turning to conflict-of-interest issues:  the WP:PRIMARY guideline suggests that we should emphasize  sources other than those written by the originator of the term to help make the decision.  Google seems to indicate that the majority of the sources are not by the originator (see secondary).   As for the content of the article:  the WP:Original research policy suggests that the sources used as a basis for the article should primarily be sources that are not by a founder/advocate of the field, but rather sources written by journalists or other academics that are more impartial.   --Noleander (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you - this is fine by me, I will insert the references in the article. Can the deletion-banner be removed thereafter, or is there a specified procedure for doing it? --dnordfors (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Dispute Resolved To summarize: It has been suggested that Innovation Journalism is a non-notable neologism. However, the discussion has concluded that the concept is prevalent in searches on the web, Google Scholar and Google Books. Notable institutions are among the sources, which are to a large part academic. The article has been re-edited, including additional third party sources. This resolves the dispute. I suggest to remove the marked-for-deletion tag after 48 hours from the posting of this comment if there is no opposition until then. --dnordfors (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You, as not only involved in this, but having a personal interest in the retaining of that article, can not declare this AfD closed single-handedly. That you even attempt to do so is quite astonishing. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture - you are talking about me again. Please talk about the article. We have discussed your initial claim that the article should be deleted since it is a non-noteable neologism. Information has been added. If you still are of the opinion that the article should be deleted for this reason, please argue for it right now. Both of us have spent a lot of time, it can be a good time to round this off. --dnordfors (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture - I have initiated another Dispute Resolution since it seems we still may be in dispute. I suggest keeping the resolution alive until we settled this AfD --dnordfors (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your weird attempts of wikilawyering and trying to ignore normal Wikipedia processes are not going to do you any good. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I find the new Dispute Resolution constructive. This is the first time I am going through these procedures, the volunteers in the Dispute Resolution have so far been kind and helpful in informing about possible ways to proceed. I have learned that neither of us can close this discussion or remove the banner for deletion, we need a site administrator for that. You and I seem to have said what we have to say in the factual matter - i.e. non-notable neologism. We lack mutual trust, I don't see our discussion getting any better by going on like this. So if you have no more arguments supporting the case for deletion, perhaps it is a good time to call for the attention of a site administrator to judge. It has gone two weeks since the case was filed. What do you say? --dnordfors (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you need to cool down and follow normal Wikipedia procedures and policies. There's no point in being all panicky about it now, it's been tagged as not being notable for more than a year. You could have done something about it then. If you want to save this article, rewrite it based on reliable-third-party sources. You can probably still use yourself as a source when you have to, but you need a reliable third-party source to claim you coined the term, and you need reliable third-party sources for most of the stuff in the article. That means not your papers, and not articles written by people you work with. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I has been substantially rewritten and now contains third party sources on top of the original publications. There are several contributing editors involved in writing the article. Are there any specifics you wish to comment on after these revisions? --68.65.164.205 (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC) --dnordfors (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not having so much time right now. I did a quick read through and tagged the blatantly obvious problems anyway. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:39, 25 September 2012 (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.