Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Cook: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
(12 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' |
|||
<!--Template:Afd top |
|||
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> |
|||
The result was '''keep'''. Consensus is that he passes [[WP:AUTHOR]]. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:grey;">&</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 02:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Jonathan Cook]]=== |
===[[Jonathan Cook]]=== |
||
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} |
|||
{{Not a ballot}} |
{{Not a ballot}} |
||
Line 26: | Line 32: | ||
*'''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. --[[User:Gilabrand|Gilabrand]] ([[User talk:Gilabrand|talk]]) 04:58, 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. --[[User:Gilabrand|Gilabrand]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 05:08, 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.[[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 05:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
::*'''Query:''' I couldn't find any mention of Oxford in there. Care to clarify? <b>< |
::*'''Query:''' I couldn't find any mention of Oxford in there. Care to clarify? <b>[[User:Jaakobou|<span style="font-family:Arial; color:teal;">Jaakobou</span>]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|<sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk</sup>]]''</b> 07:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::*The eighth note, linked [http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/19/2/267 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). [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 18:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC) |
:::*The eighth note, linked [http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/19/2/267 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). [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Gilabrand|Gilabrand]] ([[User talk:Gilabrand|talk]]) 07:41, 27 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.--[[User:Gilabrand|Gilabrand]] ([[User talk:Gilabrand|talk]]) 07:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
Line 33: | Line 39: | ||
:::Essentially I'm of the same mind as the nominator and Epeefleche. [[User:Craftyminion|Crafty]] ([[User talk:Craftyminion|talk]]) 05:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
:::Essentially I'm of the same mind as the nominator and Epeefleche. [[User:Craftyminion|Crafty]] ([[User talk:Craftyminion|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. <b>< |
*'''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. <b>[[User:Jaakobou|<span style="font-family:Arial; color:teal;">Jaakobou</span>]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|<sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk</sup>]]''</b> 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]] [http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2008/06/middle-east-israel-egypt-arab here]. A review by [[Rami George Khouri]] is [http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=1509 here]. His reporting is discussed in [http://www.carnegieendowment.org/experts/index.cfm?fa=expert_view&expert_id=409 Jamil Halil's] book ''Where now for Palestine?'' [http://books.google.com/books?id=VtQ_OnAvqOcC&pg=PA25&dq=jonathan+cook+nazareth#v=onepage&q=jonathan%20cook%20nazareth&f=false here]. He is reviewed in [[Le Monde Diplomatique]] [http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2007/03/DE_NEUTER/14523 here]. A review in the [[Jordan Times]] is [http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=6807&searchFor=sally%20bland 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. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 07:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' Between the books, articles and various reviews, I see sufficient material. See a review in the [[New Statesman]] [http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2008/06/middle-east-israel-egypt-arab here]. A review by [[Rami George Khouri]] is [http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=1509 here]. His reporting is discussed in [http://www.carnegieendowment.org/experts/index.cfm?fa=expert_view&expert_id=409 Jamil Halil's] book ''Where now for Palestine?'' [http://books.google.com/books?id=VtQ_OnAvqOcC&pg=PA25&dq=jonathan+cook+nazareth#v=onepage&q=jonathan%20cook%20nazareth&f=false here]. He is reviewed in [[Le Monde Diplomatique]] [http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2007/03/DE_NEUTER/14523 here]. A review in the [[Jordan Times]] is [http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=6807&searchFor=sally%20bland 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. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 07:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' - I'm curious how many times someone needs to have [http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jonathancook 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Sean.hoyland|< |
*'''Keep''' - I'm curious how many times someone needs to have [http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jonathancook 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Sean.hoyland|<span style="color:#000000;">Sean.hoyland</span>]]''' - '''[[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]'''</small> 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BBC_newsreaders_and_reporters 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? --[[User:Nickhh|Nickhh]] ([[User talk:Nickhh|talk]]) 10:32, 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BBC_newsreaders_and_reporters 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? --[[User:Nickhh|Nickhh]] ([[User talk: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). --[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 11:13, 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). --[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 11:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
Line 50: | Line 56: | ||
*'''Delete'''- Delete on the condition that the article continues to be supported only by self-referential sources.[[User:ShamWow|ShamWow]] ([[User talk:ShamWow|talk]]) 15:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''- Delete on the condition that the article continues to be supported only by self-referential sources.[[User:ShamWow|ShamWow]] ([[User talk:ShamWow|talk]]) 15:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
**''"[S]upported only by self-referential sources."''? Please check the [[Jonathan Cook#Notes|"Notes"]] section.<br>[[User:Nbahn|--NBahn]] ([[User talk:Nbahn|talk]]) 03:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC) |
**''"[S]upported only by self-referential sources."''? Please check the [[Jonathan Cook#Notes|"Notes"]] section.<br>[[User:Nbahn|--NBahn]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2008/06/middle-east-israel-egypt-arab here]. < |
:::*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 [http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2008/06/middle-east-israel-egypt-arab here]. [[User:SlimVirgin|<span style="color:blue;">SlimVirgin</span>]] 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, [http://books.google.ca/books?id=EVN_FhziN_EC&dq=The+Struggle+for+Sovereignty:+Palestine+and+Israel,+1993-2005&source=gbs_navlinks_s ''The struggle for sovereignty: Palestine and Israel, 1993-2005''], Stanford University Press, 2006. < |
*'''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, [http://books.google.ca/books?id=EVN_FhziN_EC&dq=The+Struggle+for+Sovereignty:+Palestine+and+Israel,+1993-2005&source=gbs_navlinks_s ''The struggle for sovereignty: Palestine and Israel, 1993-2005''], Stanford University Press, 2006. [[User:SlimVirgin|<span style="color:blue;">SlimVirgin</span>]] 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. --[[User:NSH001|NSH001]] ([[User talk:NSH001|talk]]) 19:16, 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. --[[User:NSH001|NSH001]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:CasualObserver'48|CasualObserver'48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver'48|talk]]) 00:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC) |
* '''Keep'''. Journalist, author, sufficient outside sources. Best said above as, "There is no reason within policy to delete this." [[User:CasualObserver'48|CasualObserver'48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver'48|talk]]) 00:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
Line 65: | Line 71: | ||
*'''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.[[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 20:01, 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.[[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 20:35, 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.[[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk: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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|< |
*: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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;">nableezy</span>]]''' - 21:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)</font></small> |
||
*'''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. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:05, 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. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' - I'm concerned that what seems to have been <u>originally</u> written as a genuine encyclopedic article about a journalist, appears to have become--through an array of edits made over the <u>'''past year'''</u>--an instrument to push & promote a specific [[WP:POV|POV]] or [[WP:POINT|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. --[[User:nsaum75|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">nsaum75</span>]] [[User talk:nsaum75|<sup>¡שיחת!</sup>]] 21:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' - I'm concerned that what seems to have been <u>originally</u> written as a genuine encyclopedic article about a journalist, appears to have become--through an array of edits made over the <u>'''past year'''</u>--an instrument to push & promote a specific [[WP:POV|POV]] or [[WP:POINT|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. --[[User:nsaum75|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">nsaum75</span>]] [[User talk:nsaum75|<sup>¡שיחת!</sup>]] 21:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
Line 100: | Line 106: | ||
*<s><span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:RolandR|RolandR—]]</span><br>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. />[[User:Nbahn|--NBahn]] ([[User talk:Nbahn|talk]]) 21:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)</s> |
*<s><span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:RolandR|RolandR—]]</span><br>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. />[[User:Nbahn|--NBahn]] ([[User talk:Nbahn|talk]]) 21:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)</s> |
||
: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.--[[User:Gilabrand|Gilabrand]] ([[User talk:Gilabrand|talk]]) 04:48, 30 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.--[[User:Gilabrand|Gilabrand]] ([[User talk: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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|< |
* 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;">nableezy</span>]]''' - 01:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)</font></small> |
||
: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.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 14:04, 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.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk: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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|< |
::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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;">nableezy</span>]]''' - 20:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)</font></small> |
||
:::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.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 03:41, 1 December 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.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 03:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::There's very little difference between the article when it was nominated and now. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Cook&action=historysubmit&diff=328983054&oldid=328140311] 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. < |
::::There's very little difference between the article when it was nominated and now. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Cook&action=historysubmit&diff=328983054&oldid=328140311] 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. [[User:SlimVirgin|<span style="color:blue;">SlimVirgin</span>]] 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. [[User:Tiamut|<b>< |
* '''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. [[User:Tiamut|<b><span style="color:#B93B8F;">T</span><span style="color:#800000;">i</span><span style="color:#B93B8F;">a</span><span style="color:#800000;">m</span><span style="color:#B93B8F;">u</span><span style="color:#800000;">t</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Tiamut|talk]]</sup> 10:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''. Easily meets the notability threshold, for reasons expounded above and easily checked. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 12:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. Easily meets the notability threshold, for reasons expounded above and easily checked. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 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. [[User:Newt Winkler|< |
*<s>'''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. [[User:Newt Winkler|<span style="color:olive;">'''Newt '''</span>]][[User talk:Newt Winkler|<sup>(winkle)</sup>]] 19:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)</s><small>Struck as a comment by a sock of an indef blocked user. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:grey;">&</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 20:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''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. [[User:Boud|Boud]] ([[User talk:Boud|talk]]) 21:09, 1 December 2009 (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. [[User:Boud|Boud]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FWest_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria here]. As the Arbitrator held on December 1--which I've just discovered: <blockquote>"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 [[WP:TE|unwelcome]] attempt to [[WP:GAME|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"</blockquote> 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.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 02:33, 4 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FWest_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria here]. As the Arbitrator held on December 1--which I've just discovered: <blockquote>"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 [[WP:TE|unwelcome]] attempt to [[WP:GAME|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"</blockquote> 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.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 02:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Thats nice, what does that have to do with the notability of Jonathan Cook? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|< |
::Thats nice, what does that have to do with the notability of Jonathan Cook? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;">nableezy</span>]]''' - 03:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)</font></small> |
||
::*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.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 05:02, 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.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk: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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|< |
::::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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;">nableezy</span>]]''' - 05:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)</font></small> |
||
:::::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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#nableezy here], and I've left my further comments in that regard there.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 09:18, 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#nableezy here], and I've left my further comments in that regard there.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk: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".<span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:RolandR|RolandR]]</span> 19:21, 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".<span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:RolandR|RolandR]]</span> 19:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
Line 118: | Line 124: | ||
*'''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. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:42, 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. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:V|verfified]] from anyone except his own website, cannot make any sort of claim to notabiliy.--''[[User:Brewcrewer|<span style="font family:Arial;color:green">brew</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Brewcrewer|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#2E82F4">crewer</span>]] [[User talk:Brewcrewer|(yada, yada)]]'' 18:23, 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 [[WP:V|verfified]] from anyone except his own website, cannot make any sort of claim to notabiliy.--''[[User:Brewcrewer|<span style="font family:Arial;color:green">brew</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Brewcrewer|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#2E82F4">crewer</span>]] [[User talk:Brewcrewer|(yada, yada)]]'' 18:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
::[[Nick Cohen|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. < |
::[[Nick Cohen|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. [[User:SlimVirgin|<span style="color:blue;">SlimVirgin</span>]] 23:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::Cohen is an unassessed article.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 23:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
:::Cohen is an unassessed article.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk: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. < |
::::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. [[User:SlimVirgin|<span style="color:blue;">SlimVirgin</span>]] 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.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 23:52, 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.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SlimVirgin|<span style="color:blue;">SlimVirgin</span>]] 23:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::[[Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability]] is also touching. :) [[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 00:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::*What Cptnono said. Furthermore, this isn't just a [[WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS]] argument. It's a [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Nick+Cohen| OTHERCRAPEXISTS WHERE I, SLIM, WAS THE PRIMARY EDITOR] argument.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 02:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> |