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. Kurykh ( talk) 00:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Shoe-leather reporting

Shoe-leather reporting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable term and the article is written as an interview suggesting no encyclopedic content Amisom ( talk) 19:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep The concept appears in numerous reference works about journalism such as 21st Century Communication: A Reference Handbook. Andrew D. ( talk) 00:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the term doesn't exist. Of course it exists. Existence does not prove notability. Have you found any examples of significant coverage of the concept and what it is? Amisom ( talk) 08:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete is a term that exists. But it doesn't seem to be a notable enough expression, cliché, or above all, method. It's simply a hackneyed way of saying that journalists need to go and chase down stories. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Where's the evidence for this opinion? How much metaphorical shoe-leather was used to come to this conclusion? I pound the beat some more and soon find a scholarly source such as Being There?: The Role of Journalistic Legwork Across New and Traditional Media. This seems to indicate that the topic passes WP:GNG and it's just a matter of assembling such sources. Andrew D. ( talk) 09:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• In the Gbook link above it's only used once, in passing. I can see you've really got your nose to the grindstone -- which shouldn't be a bluelink either, imo. But see if other editors agree. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This may be a tiny stub, but the term is used (I checked GScholar and GBooks) and there is enough discussion of it I can see it could be expanded and defined. (William F. Eadie (15 May 2009). 21st Century Communication: A Reference Handbook. SAGE. pp. 646–. ISBN  978-1-4129-5030-5. etc.). While I couldn't located any in-depth discussion of the term, I haven't looked hard, and unless someone can show this can be redirected to a synonym, it seems like a notable topic. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's not enough that the term exists and has a meaning. If it has not been subject to " significant coverage" (not 'significant usage': 'significant coverage') then it belongs over at Wiktionary and not here. Amisom ( talk) 17:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-notable slang expression about journalism. Not even the geographic scope is clear. Dimadick ( talk) 13:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete--Well we know the term exists per the sources cited by the two keep votes.But are they notable?-No! Thus, show the door.Existence≠Notability. Winged Blades ^Godric 14:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete-- Niche, possibly regional term to describe a broad concept in journalism. RudyLucius ( talk) 19:52, 28 February 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.