Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Participatory 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 no consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Participatory Media

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

Non-notable neologisms. Participatory Media is badly named (capitalization), but it cannot be renamed except by a sysop since Participatory media already exists as a redirect to Citizen media (being nominated for deletion too). The fact that this situation has existed for over three years may be an indication of something, that these terms are not generally accepted, that they are vague and confusing and not of encyclopedic interest, or whatever. Though I don't see any urgent need to keep them, I really don't give a damn if one or both are deleted, if they are merged, or if both stay with renaming of the badly named one and cross-linking between the two. If anybody does care, explain how you think this problem should be fixed. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these neologisms are related through the redirect as noted above:

Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is also Citizen journalism and User-generated content, and some others. Both those two are perhaps more widely used terms. At the very least merge the two under discussion. Sussexonian (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also Democratic media, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand why this page is marked for deletion. "Participatory media" is a term that is used quite extensively at MIT and even Stanford, e.g. in courses such as "4.330/4.331 Introduction to Networked Cultures and Participatory Media: Media City" and "Participatory Media: Radical Networks, Tactics, Breakdowns", projects such as "Participatory Media for Youth and Community Development", theses such as "Using Participatory Media and Public Voice to Encourage Civic Engagement" (by Howard Rheingold, Stanford University) and "Participatory Media and Collaborative Facilitation", etc.

Can "Participatory media" be redirected to here? Alternatively, if capitalization is a problem, can "Participatory Media" be redirected to "Participatory media" (a new page with the contents from "Participatory Media")?

Joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Don't see how this meets WP:N. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Events, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content."

Academics do use and papers/books do have the term "participatory media". As mentioned above, "participatory media" is a term that is used at MIT and Stanford.

btw, how do you add the timing here?

From the Citizen Media page: "Many people prefer the term 'participatory media' to 'citizen media' as citizen has a necessary relation to a concept of the nation-state. The fact that many millions of people are considered stateless and often without citizenship limits the concept to those recognised only by governments. Additionally the very global nature of many participatory media initiatives, such as the Independent Media Center, makes talking of journalism in relation to a particular nation-state largely redundant as its production and dissemination do not recognise national boundaries."

Personally, I think the terms "social media" is inadequate. Participatory media are "social media whose value and power derives from the active participation of many people" - not only to read/sample, befriend, chitchat, etc. but also to create, publish, critique, remix, recreate, collaborate, etc.

See also Levels of Participation: The SocialTechnographic Ladder developed by Forrester to indicate levels of participation among users of social media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 05:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see new updates that I've made to the "participatory media" entry - adding references to certain things said on "participatory media" by notable people such as Dan Gilmor, Jay Rosen, David Sifry, and Weinberger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 06:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

So, how does it relate to citizen media? What is to be done to fix the redirects mess? Has anybody done anything about that? Obviously not. The what links here pages for the two articles don't show any connections between them.

Participatory media still goes to citizen media and not to Participatory Media, which remains improperly capitalized.

Delete. I still say delete them both, unless somebody cares enough about them to salvage one article from them. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you salvage one article. How about removing the redirect, putting the content in Participatory Media into Participatory media, then deleting Participatory Media? Joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This is a properly done request for multiple articles; it includes Citizen media as well. Read the bit below the initial reasons; that's the text WP:AfD tells me to put there for multiple articles.

Keep after a bit of searching I think that the term is notable, but I've read the article and I can't really say that I know anymore about what participatory media is. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My inclination is also to keep both articles at this time, per WP:PRESERVE, with an eye to possibly merging in the future. An admin will be needed to move Participatory Media to Participatory media, over the existing redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping both, with no cross-linking and coordination between them, is not a reasonable option. Better to delete both, and if in the future somebody want's to start over again, fine. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reciprocal 'See alsos' and a merge tag do allow a certain amount of cross-linking and coordination. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable enough as a stopgap measure. If nothing gets done in a reasonable time it should be reviewed again. Part of the problem with these neologisms is that while there may indeed be some usage as presented in the articles, others might call it by different names, or use the same terminology with different meanings. Just be sure that the closing admin moves Participatory Media to Participatory media over the redirect. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We should have articles about concepts, not jargon. There seems to be salvageable material in this one, even though it badly overlaps with other articles as indicated above. Deciding how to divide a topic between multiple articles is generally a hopeless task at AfD. Perhaps WP:WikiProject Journalism can help organize this mess? Pcap ping 13:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both for now - I agree with Pcap above that this is not really an issue to be solved by AfD. Both these phrases ('citizen media' and 'participatory media') have been fairly widely used and probably deserve articles - even if they are neologisms, they're notable ones. I agree that they cover very similar topics, and the articles are largely unreferenced, but those are issues to be solved by improving and merging them (if necessary), not deletion. Robofish (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (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.