Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rania Khalek (2nd nomination)

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. Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rania Khalek[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is barely any coverage by reliable sources to substantiate any of the text in this article. Pretty much all the secondary coverage of her is by propaganda outlets such as Sputnik and RT or by fringe sources such as "Shadowproof", "Counterpunch" and "Stepfeed". It's impossible to write an encyclopedia article about her given the dearth of secondary RS about her. She clearly fails WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that great swaths of text have been added to and deleted from this page, which has only been here for 2 years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:AUTHOR is defenetly true about her who be reporter in the Nation, the Intercept, Al Jazeera, Salon, Vice, the Electronic Intifada and Alternet stressing on the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Syrian Civil War, United States foreign policy in the Middle East, US presidential elections and the US criminal justice system.Saff V. (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khalek meets zero of the requirements of WP:AUTHOR. She is not (1) "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", (2) not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique", (3) has not "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", and (4) her works have not "(a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so! As nominated in WP:AUTHOR, she is well known for authoring independent articles (e.g. 1, 2 ... ) about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Syrian Civil War, United States foreign policy in the Middle East, US presidential elections and the US criminal justice system.Saff V. (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to indicate that she's well-known for her authorship. There is no secondary RS coverage of her. The fact that she publishes her articles in fringe outlets is also an indication of just how non-notable she is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

really I am not going to convince you! the admin have to judge by our opinions.Saff V. (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have to mentione that WP:GNG is true about her. See here and independent sources as to her including INTERVIEW WITH RANIA KHALEK ON HER TIME WITH THE YEZIDI PMF IN IRAQ, Rania Khalek tells us about being part of a religious minority, An Anti-Israel Activist in Syria and Writers, Activists Issue Statement Against Blacklisting in Solidarity With Journalist Rania Khalek. Saff V. (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note Only those on the far-right such as Max Boot and the OP would consider CounterPunch "fringe"; cited in the very body of CounterPunch is a piece by a writer from an objectively mainstream outlet calling it a "respected left-leaning" publication. Also see this comment by Binksternet which says it all. This is not to comment on the quality of sourcing for the remainder of the article as it stands; indeed E.M.Gregory is apparently working on a revamp. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caradhras, have you had a chance to check Counterpunch on RS noticeboard?, if you have, could you post the latest, definitive ruling here? I looked, and so many discussions came up that I just decided to ignore CounterPunch and stick to mainstream sources. It would be useful, if it's regarded as reliable. Thx.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I perused two discussions, namely the "original" 2008 discussion and the one I linked to, but not any more. My brief reading does not reveal much in the way of a "definitive ruling" as I am inclined to think Binksternet's opinion should carry far more weight than the others. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC) (Thanks - I'll check them out. E.M.)[reply]

The perennial sources list says there is no consensus about the reliability of Counterpunch[1]. It's unclear to me why we should bow to Binksternet on the issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So there is even less of a reason to bow to your warped judgment deeming it a "fringe" source, either. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for the amusement of my fellow editors, Russia Today covers us as we attempt to cover Khalek: 'Reputational assault': Mystery Wikipedia editor Philip Cross targets journalist Rania Khalek . Is it permitted to ping Philop Cross to weigh in here?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]
WP:HEY Keep, she's a sort of Russian internet troll, or maybe more of a Kremlin meatpuppet. I'm not actually sure what to call her, but journalist ain't it. American-content-producer-on-Kremlin-payroll might be the most accurate I can mange. She writes, a lot, but for increasingly low-end places; she appears to have been encouraged to leave Electronic Intifada and now produces content for a Facebook channel run by Russia Today. I do think it is useful roll for Wikipedia to host reliably-sourced pages on partisan content-producers who have the RS-coverage to support a page. And this one does. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There were some changes made to the article. Currently, there are two RS in the article: (1) a Jerusalem Post story about criticism that Ilhan Omar faced for retweeting Khalek (i.e. a story about a notable person promoting a fringe individual), and (2) a Daily Beast story about a Kremlin-run outlet that mentions Khalek in two sentences. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Nation is a reliable source. https://www.thenation.com/authors/rania-khalek/ "Rania Khalek is an independent journalist reporting on the underclass and marginalized. She's written for Extra, Salon, Truthout, AlterNet, In These Times and more. For more of her work check out her blog, Dispatches from the Underclass." Several of which meet WP standards as well. And for The Nation apparently. Not super well-known, but meets the lower WP notability standards, even if you dislike her "interesting" positions. Collect (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author bios are usually written by the authors themselves. Simply authoring articles is not an indication of WP:GNG. Otherwise every single journalist and pundit would get their own Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the cite I proffered is that the person wrote for those publications, and if publications are reliable for anything they are reliable for the fact that the person wrote for them. Would The Nation say that a person wrote for them, and that the article they wrote was written by that person and that is not a reliable source because the person who clearly wrote for the publication says they wrote for the publication? And the writer wrote their own statement that they had written for such a publication? That is beyond a reasonable stretch. This person has achieved significant notoriety as you clearly realize. Sory - but my Keep position is intact. Collect (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can not for the life of me understand what you're trying to ask. Are you arguing that anyone who has authored an article for the Nation meets GNG? Simply having an author bio is not a sign of notability. Every journalist... every pundit... has an author bio in the publications where they published something. If I author an op-ed in the Washington Post, and the WaPo can be sourced for that fact... that doesn't mean I meet the criteria for GNG. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are doubling down on your position Author bios are usually written by the authors themselves as the reason an author can not be notable even though they have had a reasonable number of articles in "reliable sources"? If you write three articles for The Nation, and quoted in a number of articles on Salon, writing nine articles for Salon, and a bunch of others in other "reliable sources" - they, yes, being published repeatedly in reliable sources is a sign of notability. This is not your "single op-ed for WaPo" example. Not famous perhaps, but meets Wikipedia standards, even if I loathe her "interesting" opinions. Collect (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being published in RS (her op-eds in Salon and the Nation are absolutely not RS) is not being covered by RS. If that's the standard, then every single journalist and pundit with a couple of publications would get their own Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per good refs. Per work by E.M Gregory. WP:GNG met.BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Nom has deleted citations and material material from Commentary Magazine, The Washington Free Beacon and Washington Examiner with edit note: "removing awful sources", but left Electronic Intifada, The Intercept, shadowproof.com, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and CounterPunch in place.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latter sources were used to source "Khalek has written for [insert those outlets]", which is an OK use of those sources (but they don't indicate notability). The first source was an op-ed in Commentary Magazine which made the extraordinary claim that Khalek was "lecturing" at Universities (far better source needed for this claim) - delete. The Free Beacon was redundant, and should not be anywhere on Wikipedia, as it's garbage - delete. The third source was an op-ed in the Wash Examiner (a godawful source) which attacked her - delete. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These 3 publications are WP:RS for the opinions of writers of the opinion columns. More significantly, your assertion is misleading and inaccurate. What the article in Commentary Magazine, written by Jonathan Marks, a professor of political science at Ursinus College actually said was: "Khalek is not a marginal figure within BDS. She has lectured or been a panelist at events at Columbia University, UC Berkeley, and Arizona State, among other venues." This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, lying about sources only makes you look like a POV-warrior who is WP:NOTHERE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY Article has been expanded and sourced to reported coverage in CNN, Daily Beast, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, and Engadget.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BASIC as lacking sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sources are in passing or routine notices, beyond that the subject exists and the jobs she's had. E.g. Daily Beast is two sentences. The article is a form of WP:OR, where the whole topic fails WP:N, and article supports are scrounging for minimum sources on tangential topics. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Beast: ‘Grassroots’ Media Startup Redfish Is Supported by the Kremlin: "U.S. journalist, Rania Khalek, frequently hosted as a commentator on Sputnik and RT, the latter identifying her as a contributor. Khalek announced in November 2017 that she had accepted a job as a correspondent for Redfish.". Sources do not have to be longform profiles to be WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject fully meets WP:BASIC because

1. Multiple published secondary sources that are reliable - yes: the article has 20 different sources, which include The Jerusalem Post, RT, Al Jazeera, Engadget, The Daily Beast, CNN, Salon, Haaretz, etc.

2. Intellectually independent - yes: clearly established because the sources reflect different events in the biography of the subject at different times (the sources date from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2016, 2018, 2019).

3. Independent of the subject - ye:, no need to elaborate, but clearly zero sources are blogs or owned or controlled by the subject.

These are the the three criteria required by WP:BASIC, which furthermore adds: "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable". Article furthermore fully meets WP:GNG. XavierItzm (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the last comment by E.M.Gregory (despite the moronic and infantile "Russian Internet troll" remark) and XavierItzm. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above and also note that she is recognised by full WP:RS sources: Washington Post, Washington Post, CNN. Britishfinance (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.