Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethical 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 Redirect to Journalism ethics and standards per consensus and page creator's agreement. Concerns on title capitalization are minor and do not justify deletion; the lowercase version also exists, will be redirected as well. — JFG ^talk 18:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Ethical Journalism

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

We already have an article on Journalism ethics and standards. This article's stated purpose is to cover "the current practical application of ethical-journalism", a violation of WP:RECENTISM. (Notable contemporary controversies about journalistic practice, such as GamerGate, should be treated individually). The article itself consists entirely of improper synthesis of primary sources discussing the current U.S. President's conflict with the American press, leading to a WP:COATRACK and essay-like article. I can't find evidence that the term is used to mean anything distinct from what is covered at journalism ethics and standards, or that anything in this article is worth merging elsewhere. I recommend a redirect. FourViolas (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is already such an article regarding the ethical standards of journalism, and yes, the new article, Ethical Journalism does concern itself primarily with the supposedly "recent" claim made by several notable figures and organizations that responsible (ethical) journalism in America is essentially now dead, (please note the Washington Times claim to that effect as cited in the article.) This claim however, is not a new claim, but has been clamored about over alt-right news sites for at least 7 years that I know of, but only now has it finally arisen to the status of being fully and publicly endorsed by the POTUS himself. Thus, this article is not really covering a truly current or merely recent event, but it is covering a certain sort of a "conspiracy theory" that has been in the wings for at least 7 years, and probably much longer.

Regarding your claim that the article is already covered by the article on journalistic ethical standards, or that it should only properly be covered there, I have actually been in contact with the creator of that article, who has most certainly already read my request here concerning this article (read it, based on his contributions log), and I am awaiting his recommendations regarding this question.

It is my humble opinion that Wikipedia harms nobody, and answers the questions of many, by being willing ot fearlessly include an article that addresses and focuses specifically on this one very major question that recent events have laid in front of us. That is the question, Is Ethical Journalism still alive and well in America or not? Obviously this question holds very deep undertones about the survivability of democracy itself. I fear that if we might prove to be too fearful to attempt to fairly address this question here in a format that attempts to offer reasonably unbiased answers to the public, such as Wikipedia, and in an article that specifically focuses on this one question, then other media such as the traditional news outlets which have already been vigorously attacked, may be unable to satisfactorily answer it either.

Should these attacks against traditional American journalism itself, somehow succeed, do you honestly believe that we at Wikipedia would then somehow miraculously be immune from the next wave of attacks, should we ever publish anything that the POTUS might disagree with? I beg you to please pause and to think honestly on this rather serious question for a moment. I would ask you to please have some small measure of patience regarding this question, and to please await the answer of administrator Beland, the creator of the article on the ethical standards of journalism, before reaching any conclusions here. I will most probably accept whatever administrator Beland advises.

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Totally agree with the nominator's rationale. This issue is already discussed at Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Relationship_with_the_media. I don't think anything from this article is useful to add there, but that section could probably use some additions for context and balance - what is Trump saying the media got wrong, what do the media think of those accusations? -- Beland (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Beland. I have said above all I will say on this question, and will now stand fully aside in silence here (unless specifically requested by Beland for a comment) for the rest of this discussion, to allow the consensus process to do whatever it will here (though I may still suggest to others that they might find this conversation to be of interest.) Scott P. (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attitude, and I hope I haven't hurt your feelings—I know deletion discussions can be upsetting. FourViolas (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has made a credible claim that this article is about more than simply ethics in journalism -- I have added this discussion to the above deletion sorting pages, accordingly, in order to get the greatest number of participants, interested in relevant subject areas. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Journalism ethics and standards. If we want to have an article about journalistic ethics in the 21st-century US, or anti-journalism conspiracy theories, or Donald Trump's attacks on the press, it should not have the title "Ethical Journalism". In addition, I share FourViolas's concern that the article seems more like a persuasive essay than an encyclopedia article. At best, it could be rewritten significantly and moved to Donald Trump and the press or something like that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Journalism ethics and standards. This is an essay and coatrack, comprised of cherry-picked examples, that highlights topics that are already covered. It reminds me of a class assignment, where each student writes an article on journalistic ethics. Each student would offer different takes on the same very broad topic. There are many sub-topics that could plausibly be covered under the term "Ethical journalism" (wartime journalism, privacy and sources, fake news, propaganda, etc. etc.), and countless examples from history that could be arbitrarily highlighted for each subtopic. It is quite a stretch to think that somewhat googling "ethical journalism" is looking for anything related to Trump, U.S. politics, or even American journalism at all (Wikipedia is international). Even with a more specific title and narrower scope (e.g. "journalistic ethics in U.S. politics", this patchwork article would be problematic. Comparing current New York Times practices to its 2004 style manual is awfully close to WP:SYN. Compiling quotes (primary sources) from past presidents also seems more synthetic than I'm comfortable with for an encyclopedia article. While I don't think this article (by any name) is appropriate for an encyclopedia, it might have a place at Wikibooks, Wikiversity, or other alternative outlets. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:COATRACK, no value as a redirect because of the capitalisation. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, After reading all of your helpful and thoughtful comments here, I think I may have gotten the message. The page was simply not npov, it was an essay. Ok. Unless anyone objects, I would like to set this page as a redirect for now to the main Journalism ethics and standards page, and then possibly at sometime in the future, if it can be figured out how this topic could somehow be suitably covered without a single mention of the name, Trump, either directly or by direct implication, then to re-propose it? Deal? Scott P. (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottperry:: I'm not sure all the commenters here are male, but in any case, what usually happens with these discussions is that an uninvolved administrator comes along in a few days and reads all the comments and opinions and declares what consensus seems to favor, and implements the deletion or redirect if necessary. -- Beland (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(@Beland:) Yes, and whenever this discussion is closed, I will probably assist in "untangling" the page from template-space, and if applicable, moving it to "project-draft-space." Scott P. (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not redirect because of capitalisation per Charles Stewart, above. Laurdecl ^talk 02:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a problem? WP:POFR says redirects fromlikely alternative capitalizations are appropriate. Given that "journalism ethics and standards" is very unlikely to be a primary search target, capitalizing common redirects seems appropriate—WP:Redirects are cheap. FourViolas (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2017 (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.