Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal media


 * 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. North America1000 03:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Personal media

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A vague wide-ranging essay. The title is a vague ubiquitous term with no specific meaning. No coverage in sources of the topic as a distinct topic. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewed as a part of new article review process.North8000 (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. The page is well-written and, looking at the creator's talk page, I'm conscious that they're a student who's working on a wiki class project and we need to be careful to not bite the newbies: however, I don't see how this page can be cleaned up sufficiently to form a viable Wikipedia page. Courtesy ping to, who's mentoring the page creator and may wish to contribute to this discussion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that AFC would be a good place for students to get experience and feedback before the tougher place of article space. But some alternate structure by Piotrus such as developing in user or drafty space and getting feedback from Piotrus and then a green light from Piotrus before moving to article space. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was rejected at AFC for the same reason. Sources don't recognize it as a distinct topic.  (and, as an aside, it really isn't a distinct topic). Also "reads like an essay"  It's unfortunate that nobody explained that the former is an underlying problem rather than a matter of article improvement.  North8000 (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By pure coincidence I just noticed that in the same hour I complimented and marked as reviewed another article by the same student. North8000 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think what we need is a review of sources by someone who speaks and reads Korean fluently (I don't). I did ask the student to translate the reference article titles, and a number of them includes the concept of 'personal media' in the heading, which suggests that the topic is discussed more in-depth in the article and is therefore notable. (I will also note that many of the references here are from Korean academic sources). As such, I think it is very likely that even if there are no English sources cited, the topic may be notable in Korean academic discourse, and we need a Korean speaker to tell us whether I am right or wrong. Further note: the student translated Korean term "1인 미디어" ("one person media") as "personal media". I just found and interwiki linked ko:1인 미디어). If the article is kept, we could consider renaming it. Anyway, the topic does seem to be used a few times in English academic literature too: "1 Person Media Based on Person Wide Web for Preventing Privacy Risk", or "Personal Media as Cultural Intermediaries, YouTube Channel". Those are again Korean academic articles (i.e. written by Korean scholars, translated to English, and published in Korean journals) and there is more than just the two I cited as samples, see this search, so I stand by my initial assessment that this is a topic that is limited to Korean academia, but nonetheless appears notable enough for a stand-alone article.
 * I don't think the article is written too essay-ish, through the prose as common with ESLs is not pretty (so a few awkward constructs like "seems to be" might give it some essay-ish style, but I think it is more of a matter of poor English than overall essay-construction). Right now I don't see a good reason to delete this, but if a source review can be done and confirms this topic is not discussed in-depth in Korean works, then of course I'd revise my desision.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that the meaning in Korea of their equivalent of this term has a more distinct meaning? Wording could make something a distinct topic in Korea that is not a distinct topic elsewhere in which case an article (probably renamed to include it's Korean context) which explains such could be very informative and interesting. Essayish wording normally would be a reason to improve rather then delete an article, but I brought it up because it looks like a symptom of the article having no distinct topic.North8000 (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is possible. As you ar the nom, I'd suggest we take a breather, and per BEFORE you take a look at the (relatively few) English language sources I cite below, and consider whether the concept is notable or not. My review of them is leaning to the fact this is a notable concept, although it may have some better known English synonym, through right now I am not sure what it is outside of "social media" in general. The Korean meaning seems to be more focused on the 'published by one person' aspect of it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My only goal was to do have done my NPP job properly. And now to just contribute to the discussion to help get this sorted out properly. That said......the concern is that it is a widely used two word sequence with many many different meanings rather than being a distinct topic.   A few of the broad categories of those meanings are individually produced media, media that is individually targeted and media that is individually owned or possessed. And so IMO the notability question is not for usage of the two word sequence but for it as a distinct topic. PS: you mentioned sources cited below but I don't think that you cited any. Sincerely,  North8000</b> (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There's definitely a notable topic here but the clouds of Korean fog are obscuring it. This is not some special Korean thing and so we should knock this back to a stub and rebuild using English language sources per WP:NOENG which states that "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones...".  The article currently contains one good source of this sort and to firmly establish notability we could use one more so here's a book on the subject. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per recent work by . I've also added a bit. This is a notable (although rather broad) term that's used in media studies. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: happy to strike out my vote and give it a weak keep for the moment to allow it some breathing room, given the edits which have been made since my original comment. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.