Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Cook

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. Consensus is that he passes WP:AUTHOR. Fences&Windows 02:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Cook

Jonathan Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A very well put together article of a freelance journalist, helped along by the subject himself (JonathanCook (talk · contribs)), but at the end of the day, unnotable. The basic information of Cook comes from his own website and nowhere else. I'm not sure this is a real person or just a pseudonym. Delete per WP:BLP. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer--
You write that he isn't notable but you don't provide any reasoning. You do, however imply that all of the information comes from a "website and nowhere else." With all due disrespect, may I point out the "notes" section of the article? Did you even click on any of the links? The man is a published author, for christ's sake! What more do you want?
--NBahn (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, brother. He has obviously been published. But biographical information solely originates from his own website. Thats why this well formatted article can be deceiving. The "notes" are basically a list of where he was published, and then repeated in the "works" and "further reading" sections.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer—
Which section of WP:BLP do you believe calls for deletion of this article?
--NBahn (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and suggest speedy closure WP:SNOW. Jonathan Cook is the author of several books and has written extensively for several leading European newspapers. I admit to being sceptic to the reasons for this AfD-nomination. The nominator has a very long history of editing several articles with a strong pro-Isreali WP:POV. I don't mean to assume bad faith by this, and I don't think the nominator will deny having a pro-Israeli POV. Nothing wrong with that. Many of us have different POVs and that's all fine as long as we edit in a responsible manner, and it is my experience that the nominatior usually does that, but the effort to remove the article on an author and journalist who is consistently critical of Israel makes the nominator's POV relevant in this case. Having published extensively on a very notable conflict in a number of very large newspapers and having published several books, Cook is certainly notable.Jeppiz (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Got sources?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but sources for what, if you'd care to specify?Jeppiz (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete.Keep. First, I'm compelled to note that this is the first time I've ever seen a snow suggestion where -- other that the snow proposer -- there is unanimity in the opposite direction. Albeit, at the time a unanimity of one. As to the substantive issue, I don't see this fellow as sufficiently notable. Maybe one day. But not now. While the sources at the time of my first vote were IMHO insufficient to pass the Wiki notability test, I believe that now there is sufficient third party coverage evidences in RSs (though it is still not all reflected in the article). I still think that this article needs cleaning up -- specifically, the non-RS sources should be deleted from the article, the peacock puffery sourced only to his own site should be deleted, and the critical material that was deleted should be restored. That said, I now think this is a keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Your note is noted. It is hardly unusual to see a snow suggestion as the first comment. The "unanimity", as you call it, was only the nominator's opinion, so calling it "unanimity" is at bit comical, if you excuse me. And if publishing four books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and writing extensively about the same conflict for newspapers such as The Guardian, Le Monde is not notable, I wonder what is. My suggestion to keep as per WP:SNOW remains in place.Jeppiz (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)]

I don't see any of the books as being notable in and of themselves, and therefore don't see them as conferring notability. Freelance journalists are a dime a dozen, and someone (him?) seeking to pull him up by his own bootstraps with quotes to his own website as to his uniqueness does little to compel me to find him notable. Not everyone who has written for notable newspapers is themselves notable, so that also doesn't do it for me. The article should also be stripped of the self-promotional material, if by any chance it is not deleted. But I see this as a delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed something curious. I believe the article mentioned that he authored four books in the lead, which was what you reflected. And Slim today changed that to "several" books "including ... (and then mentioning the only three I believe he authored)". But even his own website -- assuming it is accurate -- only mentions him as being the author of three books. I expect that the inflation of the number of books he authored was accidental, but in any event I've dialed the lead back to reflect that he authored three books.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the point of removing self-promotional material, some sections of the article as irrelevant (the part about him having a "perspective" different from others is pure WP:PEACOCK). Bad quality of an article, however, is an argument to improve it, not to delete it.Jeppiz (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My comment first spoke to the paucity of indicia of notability (IMHO). Full stop. My comment then, separately, suggested that if the article survives, the self-promotional maaterial be deleted. Yes, you are correct that the second point did not bear on notabilty--though I imagine that as with COI it might well lead to closer examination. And certainly none of the article that is supported solely by his own website (him graduating certain schools, w/honors, starting the Nazareth Press Agency -- which I redlinked as I look to perhaps build an article, but see for some reason someone has un-linked -- can be counted as helping his effort to demonstrate notability. Actually, they should probably be struck.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche--
As far as your "paucity of [indicators] of notability" are concerned, please allow me to direct your attention to two different reviews (here & here) of two different books. It didn't take me long at all to find them via Google; and I am absolutely convinced that I will find a plethora of printed sources from the library later today. He has had his books published by third party publishers and reviewed by independent reliable sources.
--NBahn (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've just now only looked at the first "review". I'm not quite sure why you would view a "review" by a self-professed "pressure group of design professionals" as having any greater value than a review in a personal blog. Which for wikipedia purposes would generally be nil; it wouldn't even be appropriate for inclusion in the article, let alone as indicia of notablity. The second "review" appears to me to be not a review at all, but something he has written in which he mentions his book ... and what it appears in is also less than an RS; it is an individual's bog that describes itself by saying that it "contributes to the project of promoting contemporary radical* geography, a rich tradition of dissent and positing alternatives, a political movement to reclaim mind-spaces and virtual spaces, as well as public (physical) space". That also would fall somewhat short of RS criteria, I believe.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as per User:Jeppiz.
  --NBahn (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Electronic intifada, a personal website and reviews of his book by an assortment of Islamic fundamentalist sources are not sufficient for notability. So what if he lives in Nazareth? Lots of people do. --Gilabrand (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Please refrain from libellous comments. Calling Oxford Journals Islamic fundamentalist, or calling Junge Welt the same thing, is just silly.Jeppiz (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Query: I couldn't find any mention of Oxford in there. Care to clarify? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• The eighth note, linked here is a review of Catastrophe Remembered: Palestine, Israel, and the Internal Refugees, in which Cook contributed a chapter (I cannot see the full review in order to personally verify it). Mackan79 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pluto Press, which published his "oeuvre" is not exactly a respectable outfit (see article). Zed also leaves much to be desired. There are many freelance journalists in the world. Is every one of them worthy of a Wikipage? Maybe the answer is yes, considering how many pages Wikipedia devotes to amateur golfers and fictional characters in computer games.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - notability not established. I !voted delete before, but undid it whilst I investigated some the keep claims. They didn't pan out as far as I could tell. Crafty (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Craftyminion--
May I respectfully trouble you to please elaborate about what "didn't pan out"?
--NBahn (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Essentially I'm of the same mind as the nominator and Epeefleche. Crafty (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Softy slushy delete - there's seems to be some effort put into the page, but I'm concerned that it feels like a good part of the effort was put into promotional and obscure details rather than anything else. I can't say that a video interiew he made with his friend counts as "further reading" or that 4 links to anti-Israeli mouthpieces (EI, Islamonline, and Nur) and one more marxist "publication" give confidence that this fellow is more than a not-really noteworthy Muqawama activist. There's many of those around writing here and there for newspapers but I wouldn't use EI, for starters, for anything other than EI responses to what reliable sources say about them. If there's normative sources to replace the current ones, I will certainly reconsider though. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Between the books, articles and various reviews, I see sufficient material. See a review in the New Statesman here. A review by Rami George Khouri is here. His reporting is discussed in Jamil Halil's book Where now for Palestine? here. He is reviewed in Le Monde Diplomatique here. A review in the Jordan Times is here. This seems to me notable. Also, I think it would have been appropriate for Brewcrewer to notify User:Tiamut or myself, who had recently mentioned this writer on another page where Brewcrewer was participating, before nominating the page for deletion. Jumping straight to a !vote, without apparent research, and pointing fingers at the subject, does not seem like the right way to proceed. Mackan79 (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm curious how many times someone needs to have pieces, letters etc published by The Guardian and how many books critical of Israel they need to publish before they become unnotable and/or not a real person. It would certainly help if we could get this decision prodecure into a guideline. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I wonder if I'm allowed to say anything here, given the topics the man tends to write about, but from a journalism perspective - which is of course the correct way to look at this, rather than letting the fact that he's an "anti-Israel" writer prejudge the issue - being a "radical" freelance writer is not a bar to notability per se (see John Pilger). Not everyone has to be Bob Woodward to merit a page here - indeed plenty of generalist and little-known BBC TV reporters for example, who have never published books or had their writings included in serious mainstream publications, have their own pages on Wikipedia. At the end of the day, if someone comes across his name or his work and wants more info on him, it seems a bit odd to argue that they can't come here to find it. Maybe solicit some views from the WP:JOURNALISM project? --Nickhh (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely concur that his views are irrelevant to this discussion. And I've myself even this month created a number of article on people who are generally felt to hold views similar to Cook's--so I resent the implications by some that people voting delete, as I did, must be doing so for that reason. If anything, it suggests to me that they are voting keep for the opposite reason. As to your other points, there is a sentiment in WP that just because other articles exists of lesser people he doesn't warrant one (the others, the thinking goes, have not been AFDd yet), and there is a standard--in some cases quite high-- for warranting a wikipedia page (you need only read through all the AfDs that deluge wikipedia at any point in time, and all the deletions that take place). --Epeefleche (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that was necessarily the motivation for all or even any of those voting delete, I just said it shouldn't cloud the issue (and, to be honest, I suspect it is in part for some). I'm also conscious of WP:OTHERSTUFF - I should have expanded on my comment to make clear that I personally don't see a problem with having articles of that sort on fairly minor journalists. As noted, I don't see why WP shouldn't have brief, informative biogs on people who have a public profile, as long as they're not simply PR toss (or, alternatively, hatchet jobs). --Nickhh (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. As far as whether the wiki rules for inclusion of material on wp are too stringent, I have some sympathy for the possibility that you may be correct. That being said, I believe that the proper forum to address that issue is on the policy pages (for notability generally, and for notability in certain circumstances). We have ended up where we are through a sometimes painful process of consensus-building, and I don't believe it is appropriate for us to expand the notability standards in application because we feel they are too stringent.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A strict reading of policy as currently written is indeed quite harsh, and, as suggested, would exclude pretty much anyone other than Bob Woodward. But I suspect precedent and a more realistic reading of policy would lead to a different conclusion. I wasn't saying Mr Cook is the same level as BBC journalists and weather presenters who've made it under the radar - I was saying he's well above it, and deserves a page, as do all of them, per both policy and common sense. Just Google "Jonathan Cook" +Nazareth and see what you get, however simplistic that might be. Also look at all the cites and links others have provided. Most AfDs are discussions about where to find material relating to the subject. This one appears not to be. --Nickhh (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I am under an I/P perma-ban, so I will not vote. However, this should never have come up, as the writer is well-published, has the requisite area degree from a highly reputable university, has authored several reputable books, and writes in-depth articles on the area published every other day. 'Non-notable' is plainly specious, or proof that pushing for deletion reflects either the usual writing off of sources one dislikes, or a complete lack of knowledge of the relevant literature on the I/P area. Cook's books and articles are cited in the RS secondary literature, and this alone proves that he is notable. I.e. in works by highprofile academics publishing for established university presses, like John J. Mearsheimer,Stephen M. Walt, Joel Beinin, Derek Gregory,Saree Makdisi, Lisa Hajjar (Associate Prof.Uni of California), Baylis Thomas (Professor of Political Science, University of Texas), Richard Bonney, Jeff Halper, Nur Masalha, David S. Sorenson (prof.US Air War College), Nigel Craig Parsons (Massey University), Vaughn P. Shannon (Assistant Prof. Uni of Northern Iowa), Paul McGeough (veteren I/P journalist and author), Antony Loewenstein (freelance journalist, but published by Melbourne University Press, which is a quality publisher), as well as Israelis of varying background, like Daniel Cil Brecher,Alice Rothchild, who have written well-reviewed books on the area. etc. There is no excuse for discussing deletion as an option, since the proposer did not do the required homework. I would ask those who have rushed to call for deletion to revise their vote in view of the documentable fact that JCook is frequently cited in secondary sources of high quality as an authoritative primary source. Please review The hundreds of articles in Wikipedia on journalists with no where near Cook's publishing record, whose pages have never come up for deletion, and ask yourselves why irrelevant points of policy are being nitpicked to out this I/P journalistNishidani (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Compare these articles, ((Hillel Fendel,Yishai Fleisher,Yehuda HaKohen,Daphne Barak,Menashe Amir,Yoel Esteron,Itamar Ben Canaan,Imanuel Rosen,Tzipi Hotovely,Haggai Hoberman) and apply the same criteria to them. If Cook, then you guys have a backload of articles to remove from the Israeli journalist category, if you wish to prove that your objections are purely motivated by encyclopedic policies, and have nothing to do with political strategies.Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Jeppiz, Mackan et al Steinberger (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete—this biography fails the Basic notability criteria, namely, that the subject was non-trivially covered in reliable secondary sources. There are only two reliable sources in the article, and the coverage therein is fairly trivial—just a few lines on the subject. I appreciate all the effort that's being made to clean up the article, but it appears that it has also seen the addition of a number of unreliable sources which should be avoided on Wikipedia altogether. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you clarify whether you have also looked at the sources mentioned on this page, since you have gone as far as to say the subject lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources? In the New Statesman, for instance, Neil Berry writes several paragraphs about his methods and work. In starting, "Jonathan Cook and John R Bradley are maverick British journalists who specialise in writing about the Middle East. What distinguishes them from many other western commentators is that they have gone native in the Arab world, living among Arab people and immersing themselves in Arab culture. What also makes them stand out is the way they write with a manifest determination to make a difference, and that both have made more impact outside than inside Britain." Then, "Currently resident in Nazareth, Cook exemplifies to an extreme degree the belief that when it comes to the Middle East, westerners of conscience are bound to be engaged with the Palestine/Israel conflict above all else." Then, "Cook is a writer of forensic rigour, but there is no mistaking either his moral outrage at the west's readiness to turn a blind eye to Israel's violations of international law or his black-and-white view of the Palestine/Israel conflict." Rami George Khouri writes, "Anyone interested in this issue should read an important but disturbing short book by the British journalist and author Jonathan Cook, who has reported from Israel and Palestine for the Guardian and other respected European newspapers for many years. He now lives in Nazareth, and knows Israeli and Palestinian societies intimately." If you are saying the article needs to be improved for you not to vote delete, it would help if your criteria were more clear. Mackan79 (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the sources you are referring to were not present when I posted the above, making the argument irrelevant. I am however willing to change my mind if more sources are introduced (a few were since my last post, and again I appreciate the improvement drive). I am going to give it a few more days and see what happens to the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Löschen- Delete on the condition that the article continues to be supported only by self-referential sources.ShamWow (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "[S]upported only by self-referential sources."? Please check the "Notes" section.
    --NBahn (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• I was also wondering what ShamWow meant by self-referential sources. Shamwow, if you mean Cook himself as a source, there are sources that are independent of him e.g. the New Statesman article here. SlimVirgin 04:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. There is no reason within policy to delete this. He has written several books, has written for The Guardian, The Observer, and the International Herald Tribune, among others, is discussed by reliable sources such as the New Statesman, and has contributed a chapter, "Israel's Glass Wall: The Or Commission," to a book published by an academic press, The struggle for sovereignty: Palestine and Israel, 1993-2005, Stanford University Press, 2006. SlimVirgin 17:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep. Author of three books and contributor to a fourth, written for major newspapers, cited in numerous high-quality secondary sources. There is no question whatsoever about his notability, and I find the nomination quite bizarre A very well put together article of a freelance journalist [...] but at the end of the day, unnotable. – the article is not, in fact, "very well put together" while the subject is unquestionably notable. --NSH001 (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Journalist, author, sufficient outside sources. Best said above as, "There is no reason within policy to delete this." CasualObserver'48 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable author. the books are from well known UK left-wing publishers. Journalists may be difficult to document, but authors are not. I don;t understand the reference to Pluto Press as "not exactly a respectable outfit"--it is distributed in the US by Palgrave Macmillan. I am really not sure how that evaluation, and comments like "4 links to anti-Israeli mouthpieces (EI, Islamonline, and Nur) and one more marxist "publication" give notability" can be seen as anything else but a political judgement. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment the subject may not appear to meet the general notability guidelines with the coverage provided. It does not appear to be a Signifigant amount coverage. Also, although the sources may be reliabile in that they are providing facts, would less biased sources give him coverage? He looks close but I certainly would not say it is an obvious keep. He is a professional writer just like people are professional [insert your occupation here]. I think this would be an obvious keep if WP:AUTHOR was met by showing that "The person has created... a significant or well-known work... that has been the subject of...multiple independent... reviews." There should be no concern if some more reviews on his books are provided (maybe like the New Statesman piece). Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. If he is to pass, that would seem to be the only criterion in wp:author that he has a shot at meeting. BTW, I think that the article would be improved by deletion of material that is solely sourced by his bio, some of which appears as puffery, and perhaps attract greater support with such deletion, but since I'm not yet in the keep camp I'll leave it to someone in that camp to delete it, if they agree. I also note from the talk page that a) the subject of this article was previously involved with its drafting, and b) there was formerly critical commentary in the article (which could actually help his notability) from the ADL and CAMERA (I'll leave out his curious characterization of those organizations). Those criticisms no longer appear in the article. I find that troubling, and a sign, coupled with the points I made above, that POV has adversely impacted the text of this article, before by inflating his writing, and now by deleting his criticism. That's, to put it mildly, not a good thing. If someone can find that prior language and if it is from an RS restore it, that could only help his efforts to have a page on himself here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Presumably you saw Khouri's piece mentioned above, which notes Cook's intimacy with the cultures on which he writes. Here is another article from the Jordan Times, not a review, based on Cook's writings. Looking a bit back through Google news, I see also a passage in a story from The Herald of Glasgow here: "Last week Jonathan Cook, a writer and journalist based in Nazareth and well known for his work on the Middle East, expressed surprise that no-one has reported an even more appalling statistic: that there are some 1.5 million injured Palestinians in Gaza; an entire population who, after weeks of bombardment in one of the most densely populated places on Earth, will doubtless be left in 'a deep, and possibly permanent, state of shock', he pointed out in an online article." For full disclosure, I see that Neil Berry, the author of the New Statesman review, has also written the following about Cook in ArabNews: "The British journalist, Jonathan Cook, makes a persuasive case that the chaos into which Iraq has descended was anything but an unintended consequence of the Anglo-American invasion. Yet Cook’s is a voice unfamiliar not just to the general public but even to the more educated sections of British society. A sometime staff writer for the Guardian who now lives in Nazareth, he operates, perforce, as an underground writer, publishing much of his work on the US online left-wing magazine Counterpunch: His trenchant analysis of the motives underlying the Anglo-American intervention in Iraq is deemed far too radical for mainstream consumption." That was in March 2008, on the other hand, months before Berry's review of Israel and the Clash of Civilisations in the New Statesman in June of that year, before The Herald's article in January of 2009, and before the Jordan Times review also in January of 2009. It was days after Khouri's review in March 2008. Looking at Wikipedia's guidelines, in any case, I'm hard pressed to think that the sum of this (along with the citations also noted above) is what is meant in our policy by "trivial." Mackan79 (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep, the two concerns over a BLP like this are that it may bring the subject unwanted scrutiny (not an issue here since he edits it himself) and that it may be a vanity puff piece (won't be an issue here since lots of other editors are now reviewing the article). Together they balance each other out. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting comparison: A freelance reporter hailed mainly by himself, and journalists like Yoel Esteron, who is a newspaper editor & former managing editor of Haaretz, Emmanuel Rosen, who is well known newspaper commentator & TV and media personality, Menashe Amir, an Iranian affairs expert who has been a radio broadcaster for 50 years, and Tzipi Hotovely, a member of Israeli parliament. The banned editors who have jumped in to add their two cents would do well to check their facts better before namedropping.--Gilabrand (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is a rather good comparison. Writing regularly for a major newspaper such as The Guardian or being an editor at Haaretz looks rather similar. I enjoy both papers, by the way. And the part about "hailed mainly by himself" has already been thoroughly discredited, with secondary sources in New Statesman, published by Oxford University Press etc. Let's face it, the only reason you want it deleted is because he is critical of your country at times. That is understandable, but not particularly NPOV.Jeppiz (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so being the editor-in-chief of a paper, host of a news show or a member of parliament is on a par with contributing an article to Electronic Intifada? Very interesting.--Gilabrand (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You're being dishonet. I said The Guardian, not Electronic Intifada. Those aren't the same, you know. When discussing with people in the future, try not to lie and distort their words.Jeppiz (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It is a tad weird to see Gildabrand's eagerness to censor out comments not supporting his/her POV. None of the two users whose comments Gildabrand removed took part in the vote, and they expressed themselves very carefully. Particularly weird to remove a comment that is part of discussion days afterwards but leave in the replies to it. It makes the whole thing rather incoherent.Jeppiz (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This is starting to look ridiculous, with Gildabrand removing every second comment in a long discussion and leaving every other in. It makes no sense for a reader that way, and that kind of mindless censorship is not the intention of topic bans. Ig Gildabrand thinks that there has been a violation of a topic ban, the correct procedure would be to alert the user and an administrator, not disrupting this page in order to further Gildabrand's own POV.Jeppiz (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• I reinserted the comments. The users are not "banned" they are under a topic ban, and if Gilabrand feels that the comments are in violation of their topic ban the proper venue to voice that complaint is WP:AE, not by unilaterally removing others comments. nableezy - 21:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - This guy seems to have books, articles and reviews. As I was scanning down the reference list, I was wondering why this article was nominated for deletion. If there is a concern that an article is serving as a partisan pulpit, we might scrutinize more carefully, but the article appears reasonably brief and balanced. The comment in the New Statesman that he is a 'British journalist who has gone native in the Arab world' certainly appears interesting, and suggests that reliable sources do not dismiss his work. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm concerned that what seems to have been originally written as a genuine encyclopedic article about a journalist, appears to have become--through an array of edits made over the past year--an instrument to push & promote a specific POV or POINT. The purpose of a BLP encyclopedia article is to present a neutral background on a person and their life, not to use it as a form of subterfuge to "condemn" a people or nation. The very fact that this AfD has attracted a number of comments from editors who are "Topic Banned", also leads me to question the true nature and intent of the current form of this article and its continued existance. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 21:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a very fair point. Unfortunately, some pro-Palestianian editors want to use the article to further their own agenda while some pro-Israeli editors want to delete it altogether. Cook is clearly notable, so I object to deleting the article, but the article should be rewritten in a more neutral form. We should keep in a mind that the quality of an article is an argument to improve it, not to delete it.Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a little complex, actually. Personally I thought the article was effective as it was, but I felt the need to add some sourcing since some here seemed unwilling to acknowledge what has been raised on this page. I realize that if you add "praise" then you can be assured that there will also be "criticism." Still, representing his views doesn't mean you are pushing them. A supporter of Cook may be resistant to adding material that makes him sound strident and therefore undermines his credibility; editors who want his more controversial statements on the record may be more inclined to add them. It can be amusing when those views conflict with the political activist types, who want a platform for controversial views. I agree with Jeppiz, however, that these are editorial decisions that are normally worked out on the page, and in truth I'm not sure at all what in the current bio is seen as problematic. Mackan79 (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you saw my above comments re edits consisting of 1) inflating the number of books he has written; and 2) deleting mentions of criticism of him from the article (which he reference himself on the talk page discussion). I personally don't see that as "complex." I haven't gone through the article's past edits, so I don't know the full extent of this, but I find it troubling--and especially so in an article edited in part by the subject himself.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think those are two good points to always keep in mind. 1. We should not inflate his work, the works he has written have been widely reviewed in respectable secondary sources and he is the writer of a number of academic articles, that have also been cited. As such, there is no need to inflate what he has done, but nor should the works he actually has written be downplayed. 2. I never like when people edit articles about themselves, but that doesn't seem to a problem here. Cook never made any edit to the article, he only posted three comments on the talk page - and the most recent was written more than 3 years ago. This shouldn't be a problem.Jeppiz (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up It looks like there are alot of 3rd party sources by the layout of the works, notes, and further reading but they don't look so hot after further review. The third party sources are: 2 peices from Electronic Intifada, 1 from the Refugee Studies Centre's publication, a quick summary in a book he contributed to, and 1 from New Statesman. In Further reading, there is something from Dissident Voice, IslamOnline, and Baltimore Chronicle, and another from Electronic Intifada. The audio/video has another Electronic Intifada and a Google Video. I really assume there is info out there from the amount of work he has done, but as it is the sources used are not impressive and they need to be presented closer to the layout guidelines if the article is kept.Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Dissident Voice appears to be some sort of "communal blog" -- http://dissidentvoice.org/about/ -- that calls itself a "newsletter". --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 02:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I rarely call academic publications "hot", but publications by Oxford University Press are rather appreciated. Same goes with writing a book notable enough to be reviewed by New Statesman. Nobody is claiming he should win the Pullitzer-prize, but certainly notable.Jeppiz (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No way: Oxford gets me all turned on and stuff! Just for anyone who doesn't have the chance to go through all of the wikilinks and to be clear, Refugee Studies Centre is part of the University of Oxford’s Department of International Development. Does he have anyhting on Google Scholar searches?(that migth be a question for the talk page and not deletion discussion) Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think this pushes the article in the wrong direction. For instance, The Herald of Glasgow describes Cook as "a writer and journalist based in Nazareth and well known for his work on the Middle East."[1] Should I add this to the article? Rami G. Khouri writes that Cook "has reported from Israel and Palestine for the Guardian and other respected European newspapers for many years," and that Cook "knows Israeli and Palestinian societies intimately."[2] Should that be added? Berry writes in the New Statesman that Cook has had a greater impact outside of Britain than inside, which is illustrated by reviews in the Jordan Times, ArabNews, Le Monde Diplomatique and other reviews that have been mentioned. If this should be added to the article, it should be as an editorial decision, not just to bolster his "notability" under our policies. Mackan79 (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. The subject as is does not have enough coverage from independent reliable sources to create an article. Primary sources + some biased secondary sources do provide enough info. Do those secondary sources assert notability?Cptnono (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, didn't you do that Google Search you mentioned? A quick search on Google Scholar gives a rather long list of references. Apart from those we already discussed, I find these from Edinburgh University Press [3], [4], this one from JSTOR [5] and so on. There is a long list, just do a search for Jonathan Cook and Israel or Jonathan Cook and Palestine. The more notable of these would merit inclusion in the article. All of these I mentioned here are respected, independent academic sources.Jeppiz (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going through "'Jonathan Cook' + Palestine" right now. I haven't hit much of value yet but it did yield results. Most seem to be things he has written and not coverage of the writer (the subject of this article). The first Edinburgh University Press requires a loggin so I can't tell if it is something he wrote or if it is something written about him. The second and jstore is again not about him but something he wrote. We need signifigant secondary coverage. I'm not saying delete it I am just saying notability has not been aserted. A few reviews from sources that are not biased, have signifigant detail, and circulation are all that is needed. Quality sources will make a quality article. Forcing it as Mackan79 alluded to needs to be watched out for, though. Cptnono (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but all we have to do is to assert notability, not status as super-star. An author of several books, reviewed in New Statesman, published works in many respected academic journal, cited in other respected academic journals and regular writer for The Guardian and Le Monde. I don't think we'll find much more than that, but that is far and away enough to assert notability.Jeppiz (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Edinburgh University Press Holy Land Studies article is a two page review of his book Blood and Religion. I think his notability quotient is quite slight actually and I'd rather see articles about his work - if that is of sufficient merit - than a biographical entry. However, considering their are some fifty biographical articles on journalistic agony aunts and uncles it would seem petty to single out this person's biographical article for deletion.Freekra (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Book reviews, etc., demonstrate that he passes WP:CREATIVE, criterion 3. That said, the excessively admirational tone of the biography could stand to be toned down. Ray^Talk 01:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I rather suspect that what you are referring to as "the excessively admirational tone of the [article]" is a symptomatic outgrowth of the increasingly tendentiousness of this AfD debate. Some people, after all, keep on insisting that the subject isn't notable, so there is naturally an effort to undermine such said claims by highlighting the said subject's notability.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Seconded. I think this whole process is counterproductive when there are so many other articles that are more deserving of deletion. Freekra (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The factual innaccuracy re the number of books he has written, the stripping out of critical comment (which, of course, would help his case at the AfD), and the reliance on his website for admirational material all appear to have preceded this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche is right, I don't think this AfD-process has had any impact on the article. I also agree with Nbahn, though, that the this situation may have arisen due to one "side" trying to undermine his credentials and another "side" trying to boost it. This is far too common on many articles linked to different kind of controversies.Jeppiz (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep Per Ray. Published author, works reviewed by popular press. Notable journalist (within the field). Unomi (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• keep Appears to meet WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

keep Unknown wrestlers get their own page,why can't he? He's done some signifigant work.--Kevinharte (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Comparing this subject to others is inappropriate (WP:OTHERSTUFF) and even though he is published, the coverage on his publications is lacking. However, there is coverage out there. I can't honestly say I would be concerned if this wasn't a contentious article. That being said, I have seen subjects with similar questionable yet good enough notability moved into a sandbox until the fluff and other concerns are addressed. I think the comments in this discussion show that there are problems so hopefully something like that isn't needed. I personally would start off by removing the poor sources (dissadentvoice) and replacing them with good ones (maybe the Isabelle Humphrie piece if someone can find the complete review and it is OK). Cptnono (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur that clean-up (removing questionable sources and replacing w/better sources, and I would suggest removing peacock material based solely on his website's say-so) could help the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• 'Strong Keep' Frankly, I find it bizarre, and not a little disturbing, that this article is even being considered for deletion. Cook is a very well-known writer. He has published hundreds of articles, in papers such as The Guardian, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Irish Times, Al Ahram and the International Herald Tribune, as well as in other publications which some might reject as too partisan to be notable. He has had three books published (the fact that one editor mistakenly said four books is certainly not a justification for deletion), and has contributed chapters to several more. A Google Scholar search for "jonathan cook" = israel gives 173 results, revealing that he has been cited by scores of academics. Nearly 100 other pages link to this article. Cook clearly passes all possible tests for notability, and I can see not the slightest justification for deleting this. RolandR 17:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Just a couple of questions. 1) I can't seem to find a reference in applicable notablity standards to number of articles written by a journalist in RSs conferring notability--might you point me to it? 2) Assuming you can point me to the aforementioned guideline I've missed, how many hundreds of articles has Cook written in RSs? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a folow up and to make sure people are not jumping to conclusions. The Google scholar search did not show that he was regularly cited by his peers. Some of his writing did pop up and there is at least one 2 page review. I assume there are more and stopped seaching after some time since it appears to be good enough (for at least a stub).Cptnono (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per the above, meets WP:AUTHOR. More reviews of his books turn up in gscholar search.John Z (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• RolandR—
  Please allow me to address the elephant in the room by tendering the opinion that this sort of AfD is par for the course — ESPECIALLY if one is both a chronic and Zionist POV pusher — for one who regards Wikipedia as merely being another battleground that will naturally be conquered by the Israel Lobby for the benefit of Israeli Zionists. I do not claim that this is some sort of brilliant analysis; I am merely calling a spade a spade.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, NBahn, for summing up the arguments on this page and revealing your very obvious bias. The gang of bullies at work here, flagrantly violating bans and turning this page into a political manifesto, is a disgrace to Wikipedia.--Gilabrand (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Obvious keep, the nom here has in the past attempted to repeatedly insert BLP violating OR into this article a number of times and I cannot believe that this is anything other than a bad faith nomination. Cook clearly passes WP:AUTHOR with numerous reviews of his work. The arguments about Cook editing the article are bogus, the only edits made were to the talk page which is exactly what WP:COI says to do. The arguments about it not containing information from CAMERA is also specious as that is most certainly not a reliable source and without doubt should not be used in a BLP. nableezy - 01:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nab--I don't think that's quite fair. The article when nominated showed the imprint of bad faith before, but in the opposite direction, as detailed above--if not as you point out the result of someone editing under the author's name, still the result of someone editing in a manner that I would suggest is innappropriate. Furthermore, in its original state it lacked (IMHO) sufficient RS reviews -- and even now non-RSs and his own website constitute most of the support in the article (though better sources have since been mentioned above). I'm voting keep now, but I think your comments are over the top. IMHO of course. I would suggest this page needs cooling down, not further incendiary language.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel that this is unfair, but the nominator here done several things that make me say that. He has repeatedly removed things cited to Cook articles in other articles on the basis that he is some "non-notable freelance journalist". He has repeatedly reverted to include BLP violating OR into the Cook article. Only when he was unsuccessful in intimating that Cook is associated with David Duke has he nominated the article for deletion. This is of course an appeal to motive and thus not a valid argument for keeping the article. The rest of my keep !vote addressed the actual merit of the nomination. There is an unfortunate tendency at Wikipedia to suppress information and views that are not in line with ones own personal views. I see that here and in any number of other AfDs on clearly notable topics covered in numerous reliable sources. nableezy - 20:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'm now voting keep, but IMHO the article as it stood at the time of nom was lacking in RS commentary on his books. And while I don't know what's gone on in other articles, which as you point out may be irrelevant here, this article at the time of nomination reflected a pro-Cook bias (as indicated above), not the opposite.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There's very little difference between the article when it was nominated and now. [6] There's a New Statesman review added by Mackan, some formatting changes that I added, and I removed a point from Cook saying being in Nazareth gave him a unique perspective. If there are other changes, they're minor. SlimVirgin 20:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable and there is now more than enough information to make for a decent article. Thanks to Brewcrewer for nominating it so that people with access to better search engines than I could add their sources to the mix of those available for improving and developing the article. Tiamut^talk 10:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily meets the notability threshold, for reasons expounded above and easily checked. Zero^talk 12:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - for reasons noted above, this journalist is clearly notable. Wikipedia's notability guidelines for journalists may be too weak, but as someone else noted, it's just not reasonable to apply a tougher standard selectively to people whose opinions you don't like. Newt ^(winkle) 19:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Struck as a comment by a sock of an indef blocked user. Fences&Windows 20:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - There are plenty of secondary sources, and Cook's articles are published in several mainstream newspapers, and he has three published books published by Zed Press and Pluto Press. He himself is a valid source for his opinions stated as opinions, provided that that is clear in the text. The comment in the deletion argument "I'm not sure this is a real person or just a pseudonym." seems to find its response by sufficient evidence that Jonathan Cook is real and that his self-claimed biographical information is consistent with what secondary sources claim. On Israel/Arab League issues we should be particularly sensitive about attempts to delete author entries. Boud (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Flawed AfD. First, let me note for the record that I voted keep, and at this point am still voting keep. That said, I'm appalled by the gross disregard of Wiki bans by three editors who took part in this AfD. And this entire AfD has been poisoned by the many comments and one vote, now deleted, of three editors who were topic-banned from participating in discussion precisely like this AfD. Further discussion of this point can be found here and here. As the Arbitrator held on December 1--which I've just discovered:

  "AfD discussions about IP-related articles quite clearly falls under "participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles". There is no grey area. An AfD is about as perfect of an example as you get for a "community discussion substantially concerned with such articles". ... If ArbCom or the community says that an editor is prohibited from editing or discussing certain articles or topics, that editors should not edit or discuss those topics. Shifting discussion over to user talk pages or other venues is at bare minimum a gross violation of the spirit of a topic ban. I, individually, consider shifting discussion to another venue as an unwelcome attempt to skirt the edges or jump through loopholes of the sanction. As far as I'm concerned, the confusion here is only arising from splitting hairs and trying to look for grey areas where they do not exist. The topic bans are perfectly clear and AfD is unquestionably included"

  The gross violation of these editors of their bans has inappropriately suggested a level of consensus and shared understanding of editors in good standing to edit this AfD that exceeded any that may have existed. It therefore unfairly impacted this AfD, a point which I request the closer consider.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats nice, what does that have to do with the notability of Jonathan Cook? nableezy - 03:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• It perhaps has a little to do with the fact that you and two other editors who are also banned from commenting on this page, and from partaking in the consensus-building conversation on this page, have violated your bans by doing so. In your case, you have also violated your ban by voting. The effect on the determination of Cook's notability? It poisons this AfD by fooling editors, as they are making up their minds and writing their comments here, into believing that you are editors in good standing to make such comments, and that the weight afforded them should be the same afforded those of any other three editors in good standing. Those ban violations skew the process, especially as all three of you voted the same way, and supported each other in discussion here while drowning out dissenting opinions, creating a false sense of consensus that is really only a "consensus of the banned". And you've had the temerity to insist that your comments stay here -- while at the same time having the audacity to delete my comments from this page -- which you don't even have any right to edit -- and moving them without my permission to a discussion page. All of this adversely impacts this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not banned from commenting on this page. If you think that I am WP:AE is thataway. And the two others you refer to did not !vote. nableezy - 05:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As the only pages in this area that you are allowed to edit at the moment are "article talk pages", I believe you are banned from this page (as this AfD is not an "article talk page"). I see that as you suggested an AE has been opened here, and I've left my further comments in that regard there.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And the bottom line, supplied by an uninvolved admin, seems to be " Epleefleeche's interpretation is more likley textually correct, but Nableezey's is less absurd".RolandR 19:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is true. Almost. I imagine that the line below that near-bottom-line is actually the "bottom line". In which the admin wrote: "I'm going to hold action, but very strongly suggest Nableezey find something not remotely related to I/P to write about, like Southeast Asian cuisine".--Epeefleche (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I will leave it up to the closing admin to determine whether various topic banned editors should or should not have commented on this page... To me it does not really matter one way or the other. What matters is whether the notability of the subject (Johnathan Cook) has been demonstrated, not who has demonstrated it. I think it has, hence my vote to keep. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I got stuck in real life and did not have the opportunity to respond to some of the comments here, which all seem to be making the same incorrect point. His books have received a little coverage, mostly be fringe sources, but so will any book on the Israeli-Arab conflict. At the end of the day, the author is clearly unnotable. With all the touchups to the article, Cook's own website and Wikipedia are the only two sources supporting the claim that a person with the real name of Jonothan Cook was born in England, got a degreee to two, and then moved to Nazerath to write on the Israeli-Arab conflict. A subject whose biography cannot be verfified from anyone except his own website, cannot make any sort of claim to notabiliy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's another example of the same thing, a journalist whose personal details have been supplied entirely by him, because other sources haven't written about his personal life much, or at all. And yet he's one of the best known journalists in England. SlimVirgin 23:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Cohen is an unassessed article.Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That makes no difference. The point of the analogy was simply to address Brewcrewer's point, namely that Cohen's clearly notable, yet we have no information about his personal life that he hasn't written himself. SlimVirgin 23:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That article might be against all sorts of guidelines but that doesn't have an impact on this article since its unassessed status shows that it has not been properly checked for quality. We should be looking at FAs to emulate and following guidelines. As someone who is not familiar with Cohen, he is not clearly notable. That is why independent sources are needed to verify information and assert notability. I did go with "keep", by the way. It is probably time to start focusing on fixing the poor sourcing issue off the AfD.Cptnono (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Your faith in the assessment system is touching, but I have to tell that an article being marked as assessed is meaningless, except for FA, because all assessments bar that one depend on one person's opinion. Results vary wildly and absurdly, as you can imagine. SlimVirgin 23:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability is also touching. :) Cptnono (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• What Cptnono said. Furthermore, this isn't just a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. It's a OTHERCRAPEXISTS WHERE I, SLIM, WAS THE PRIMARY EDITOR argument.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of you seem to think that notability for an author requires something like a long write up in the New York Times, or discussion by world-famous household names, or things like that. It's a little funny to me when I think of art review that a friend of mine got in the Washington Post, which I guess would be seen as evidence of notability (not yet). Anyway, everything doesn't come down to a few elite newspapers (in which this author has written), or publishers, or universities. This author is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards in the sphere in which he writes, what I might describe as left-wing Middle East politics. He isn't just a private person, or the guy who writes a blog and maybe self-published a book. He's been reviewed, in detail, by several of the biggest names in that arena, and not just once. Again, he's also been published in entirely mainstream sources. Not famous, but notable. There is material from reliable sources, of course these are partisan sources, to write the biography without problem. That's the gist of Wikipedia's notability requirements as I understand them, and probably why almost everyone here is voting keep. Mackan79 (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

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.