Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authentic 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 delete. Sandstein 15:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Journalism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Requesting deletion per WP:NOTE and WP:ORG (with respect to the school), as no sources are independent (they are all interviews of or remarks by the supposed originator of the term). A search did not find any results which showed coverage with substantial depth. Thylacine222 (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also noticed looking at sources that the one other person quoted on page is also associated with the school. I think this is a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:G11 Thylacine222 (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ (change to Delete - see below ) ~~to Al Giordano. The references and other sources in Google news search almost make this topic notable~~ - but not quite. It is unfortunate because it is an interesting school of thought. I am thinking some alternate-newspapers (the weeklies) are probably closest to this type of journalism - and some are not. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: Were you able to find independent sources in Google News? The only articles I could find clearly referring to the school of thought or the actual school were from NarcoNews, which runs the school. Honestly, I don't think any section of this article could be merged without making the other article significantly more advertorial. Thylacine222 (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thylacine222: I was tired when I was at this AfD - maybe I misunderstood the sources I was looking at. I'll have another look. I'm certainly not interested in promoting adverts on Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

problematic sources of School of Authentic Journalism. This appears to have been some sort of short course for activist journalism. It may have taken place only once, not sure. Sourced to the small, online Narco News, of which Giardano is the founder and editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most search hits on this "school" are to Narco News here: [1]. There is this in the alternative/progressive Tucson Weekly: [2]. But it is "posted by," probably indicating that the Tucson Weekly (like many online and small outlets) allows some writers to post at will. Not the same as edited journalism. And this "article" is an advertorial shilling for donations to the "School"'s kickstarter campaign. This doesn't look good so far.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term itself, "authentic journalism," is a neologism being pushed by Giordano (whose own article could use a careful vetting - it's overstuffed with hype). Neologisms are fine, but searching on this one [3] leads into a tiny echochamber of Giordano buddies and admirers. It also lead to an article , in Narco News - surprise, surprise! [4] establishing that the School of Narco Journalism is a sort of Brigadoon that "exists once a year." E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best source for the neologism and for the "School" is this: [5] article in the Boston Phoenix. Unfortuantely, since the article is in the paper Giordano worked for at the time of publication, it is not an independent source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent validation found for either the "School" or the neologism. Not even enough to justify a redirect to Al Giordano.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (@Thylacine222:) 99% of the sources on Google News seem to be Narco News which runs the school, as has been said above. And, according to this discussion the other sources seem to be questionable as reliable and/or independent. I agree with this. I would rather see broader coverage in sources that are not questionable. I think my above comment was tainted by liking or being enamored with this topic. Also, the Huffington Post posted an article either related to this subject or on this subject [6]. I don't know if this had been noticed before. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.