Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Method journalist


 * 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. Arguments that the subject matter is notable are not supported by adequate evidence; indeed, the mere existance of Google Hits does not establish significance. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Method journalist

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable neologism that has no sources to show that this type of journalism is notable. I originally prod'd the article for the above reason, but an IP editor removed the notice for no reason. TheLetterM (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. If a single source is found then perhaps mention in Gonzo journalism, of which "Method journalism" seems to be a (perhaps more extreme) sub-class. If more reliable sources appear which discuss "Method journalism" then WP should have an article on it. Northwestgnome (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or merge with journalism 8 Gnews, 4 Gbooks and 2 Gscholar hits seems to establish some notability.--UltraMagnus (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - this might be a subset of gonzo journalism, perhaps, but the usage is substantially low; this rings of neologism to me. Looking at some of the Ghits for it, it isn't really established what it means, in the grand scheme of things, either. Unless someone's written a greater explanation of it than I can find, I say neologism. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.


 * Delete - Given the name of the creator (User:Gigisagan), the opening line of the article as originally written ("Method Journalist is coined by Gretchen Sagan in 2009."), and the complete lack of references, I suspect this is just a case of self-aggrandizement. Based on the Google News hits, it's clear that this isn't a neologism (first valid usage I found was in 1994). If someone wants to add a short referenced bit to Gonzo journalism, Journalist, or even Journalism ethics and standards, that would be great—but this ain't it.  Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not a neologism, it is notable and there are good alternatives to deletion. When PRODs are removed, nominators should engage in discussion at the article before bringing the matter here immediately. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unreferenced neologism. No objection to a one or two sentence addition with references to one of the articles listed by DoriSmith. Glass  Cobra  15:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * did you read my comments above, it is obviously not a neologism --UltraMagnusspeak 15:52, 14 October 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.