Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovation journalism (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) '''-- Cheers, Riley   Huntley ''' 02:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Innovation journalism
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Outcome of the last nomination was "no consensus" with a invitation to resubmit. Having gone through my watch list I have reexamined the matter, and I feel that the flagrant conflict of interest by the more or less sole author of the article calls for blowing it up at the very least. It is promotional, and even the third party references (e.g. this Ziff-Davis article) give me the uneasy feeling that, as a term, it doesn't actually mean anything. At the very least we need an article written from third party sources by, well, third parties. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, has received significant coverage across a multitude of independent reliable secondary sources, including books and media sources, see for example . &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a source, that's a template. Do you have a specific source in mind as an example? I did the Googles, and what I found was that material was heavily masked by the coincidental juxtaposition of the two words. Most of the rest of the material seemed to be written by the article's author or his institutions. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree, it's quite easy to see, from clicking on the template, that there's significant coverage from multiple sources of the phrase itself, not just incidental of the two words, and from multiple different independent authors, particularly in books. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, I didn't interpret the results that way. But even so, the current article, having been written almost entirely by the originator of the term, is unacceptably contaminated with COI. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but that's not reason to delete the entire article. It's a reason to clean it up for sure, but not to delete the entire thing outright. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been involved with the Innovation Journalism Program at Stanford and especially for Pakistan, we have seen a significant improvements in the quality and approach of the journalists towards innovation. and The Pakistan INJO Program was designed to create value for the journalists to better understand innovation and competitiveness related issues by the Competitiveness Support Fund and later on acknowledged by the industr itself
 * Keep per Cirt. Yeh, the concept is notable and has received significant coverage, especially looking at books. Article probably needs to be rewritten, but AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Voice of America, Urdu Service did an exclusive interview of Amir Jahangir on the impact of the Innovation Journalism on the Pakistani information ecosystem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajjano (talk • contribs) 11:21, 16 November 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.