Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazz 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 keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 05:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Jazz journalism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems like a Copyvio, little notability, In desperate need of Wikification, no proper sources.  Te ll y a ddi ct  20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I found no evidence of copyvio on the Internet other than a few sentences taken from several sources. However, it is a notable subject that, once wikified and sourced, could be perfectly fine. I'm up for the job, so if you feel like posting a message on my talk page regarding the outcome of this AFD, I will remake the article. -- Theunicyclegirl  ( talk,  review me! ) 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism not properly supported by the (few) sources. Jazz journalism <> Jazz Age Journalism, for example. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Look's like someone's attempt at original research to go with their coining of the neologism. --Calton | Talk 04:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Google scholar, lexusnexus, etc. give plenty of evidence that this was a neologism in the 1920s. It seems plenty notable.  It just needs a wikify and sources tag, give it time. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Smmurphy. Lankiveil 23:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC).


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Daniel Bryant  00:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for now; seems like potentially important history. Perhaps someone who knows about the topic could judge that it might be better under another name, or merged with some other article like History of Journalism, but that can always be done later.  --Allen 04:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Reasonable article needs to be cleaned up and is at stub status but deletion is a bit harsh. --St.daniel 13:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup; solid and verifiable information, but certainly needs some TLC --Mhking 14:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and possible merge: This article meets the notability guidelines, as I have found references for it. Though, perhaps the article could be merged into "Tabloid" under the history section of the article. As for the wikification, I'd be happy to do that, if needed, of course.  ~  St ep  tr ip   19:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Clean-up per Mhking. Acalamari 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue to develop the article as per the commenters above, the subject is worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Yamaguchi先生 01:44, 17 April 2007 (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.