Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rania Khalek (3rd nomination)

Add links
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient in quality and especially for a BLP Star Mississippi 01:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rania Khalek

AfDs for this article:

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

Rania Khalek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, no real coverage of Khalek herself, the article consists largely of places she has worked, which does not notability make per WP:INHERITED, her views on various subjects, and the opinions of her political opponents. There are no in-depth sources allowing us to create anything resembling a biography, in fact the only biographical detail is her birthday sourced to a tweet thanking people for happy birthday wishes. Nableezy 03:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Palestine. Nableezy 03:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree there aren't sources to meet WP:GNG; being quoted in the media, and writing in the media, isn't the same as being subject to GNG coverage. Wikipedia should not be the first independent media to publish a person's biography. Levivich (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mostly per nom (took screenshot for posterity). Volunteer Marek 04:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, she was briefly mentioned in a number of sources. But there is no in-depth coverage anywhere. She seems to fail WP:BASIC ("trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" - that is about her). Also fails WP:CREATIVE. She seems to be "notable" only for making inflammatory comments and posts. For example, "Rania Khalek, frequently hosted as a commentator on Sputnik and RT, the latter identifying her as a contributor" [1] is not in-depth coverage, although that does define her as a Kremlin's propagandist. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are plenty of sources which mention her, but almost no sources that are about her, or at least nothing that you wouldn't find for any journalist. I think the piece about Ilhan Omar retweeting her might qualify for establishing notability but really only that one, and only barely. Loki (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is a notable journalist who has worked with and interviewed numerous important figures such as anti-Putin/anti-Soviet scholar and dissident Boris Kagarlitsky, journalist and editor Robert Wright, scholar and senior fellow at the Quincy Institute Anatol Lieven, journalist/commentator Chris Hedges, etc. She is one of a very few independent journalists to have reported on Syria during the civil war (and who is fluent in Arabic, at that), as well as covering a wide range of other subjects: current events, US and international politics, labour politics, etc. She operates mainly on electronic media, with podcasts that have thousands of viewers, her own blog Dispatches from the Underclass, and with a Twitter account that has a quarter of million followers. She was an associate editor at the Electronic Intifada and co-hosts the podcast Unauthorized Disclosure. Her work has appeared at Al Jazeera, The Nation, Salon, Truthout, FAIR, Vice, AlterNet, etc. These are all prominent mainstream or progressive media outlets. She has been referenced by news outlets such as Democracy Now! and by online political commentators. It's absurd to claim she isn't notable. There are plenty of less notable subjects that have articles in WP, and so they should. Furthermore, the reasons cited in support of her article in the last Article for Deletion (21 March 2019) remain true and, of course, she has produced three more years of work since that discussion, thereby increasing her notability. Pinkville (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Im sorry, but where does worked with and interviews numerous important figures figure at all in WP:N? This is purely a WP:INHERITED !vote, claiming that by relationship to notable topics one is made notable. No, notability rests on the coverage of the subject, not coverage by the subject of notable topics. The only source I can find that gives any real coverage of Khalek is an interview she gave to Stepfeed, but thats it, and an interview isnt exactly a secondary source to demonstrate notability. Thats the only thing resembling a reliable source that covers Khalek in any depth at all. nableezy - 02:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to provide sources which discuss her rather than sources she may have been associated with. I mean… you could try mentioning those very sources you tried to remove because you didn’t like what they said but then … that gets kind of… “complicated” for you, don’t it? Volunteer Marek 04:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A fundamental problem with this disingenuous AfD is that those people who want to delete are judging her notability solely on the flimsy, negative sources that are currently in the article - and because of this whole wasteful discussion involving edit warring and cynical reinsertions of dubious content that needs at least to be discussed, there has been no time for anyone to actually write the article with content that demonstrates her notability. This exercise so far is a bitter farce. Nableezy, notability by association is actually how notability always works - publication in notable venues establishes the notability of the creator - notability is, by definition, contingent on association. She has collaborated with notable journalists and commentators, that adds to her notability. No one is notable on their own, that's a non sequitur. Also, you're looking for text coverage of Khalek - she operates mostly in non-print media - so you're going to have to listen to podcasts and news reports that reference her or interview her and transcribe that content. This is an ongoing problem in WP, which doesn't adequately draw from non-print sources. Pinkville (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, what? notability by association is actually how notability always works - publication in notable venues establishes the notability? Uh, no, that is exactly not how notability works. What the actual heck, @Pinkville...I think maybe you need to go review notability policy. There is no notability inherent in being published in RS or in interviewing notable people. Notability comes from being discussed in RS. This is WP 101. You may need to do some policy review. Things have evolved around here. valereee (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just say this wasn't my finest moment of writing - I'm well aware of WP's definition of notability, and I was veering off into grappling with the concept itself. You'll note I did make the point "No one is notable on their own" and highlighted the challenge in providing the necessary (in WP:Notability terms) coverage of Khalek that exists almost solely in non-print media. The latter points are precisely within the scope of WP notability policy. Pinkville (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    disingenous - not candid or sincere, dishonest, underhanded and deceitful. And you say that while saying the exact opposite thing that policy says. Notability is not something gained by association, how does an admin not know this? But since youre an admin, I assume you know that WP:NPA and WP:AGF are expectations of all editors, especially admins, and if that is the case maybe reconsider your language.nableezy - 13:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck the offending passages - unless I missed something, in which case let me know. Pinkville (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like you should probably strike your vote too in light of being confused with regard to Wikipedia's notability policy. Or because "# of twitter followers" is not a consideration for WP:NOTABILITY. Also probably should mention that you were asked on twitter to edit this article on behalf of the subject and/or as a favor to your partner. Volunteer Marek 01:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't overdo it. Pinkville (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Coverage in secondary sources looks good, e.g. dedicated articles in Commentary (magazine) in 2016, Jerusalem Post (blog) in 2014 and 2015, StepFeed (English-language website addressing Arab and Muslim millennials) in 2017, Shadowproof in 2017. Her views are reported by CNN in 2019 (interviewed on Russian state-backed outlets and freedom of information), Washington Post in 2016 (Rania Khalek, 30, a journalist who has written critically of Clinton, said the Democrat poses a more direct threat to the Muslim world than Trump) and 2017 ("'We still don’t know exactly what happened in Syria and who was responsible,' far-left writer and commentator Rania Khalek wrote on Twitter"), Haaretz, Jerusalem Post (controversial journalist and activist), Al Jazeera (Bartlett, Beeley, Fisk and Khalek, for example, repeat the regime’s propaganda almost verbatim), HuffPo (A coterie of left-wing writers and activists, notably journalist Rania Khalek, have joined Gabbard in making this case), Foreign Policy (so-called independent journalists such as Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek ... have even toured government-controlled regions of Syria to whitewash the scale of the atrocities). I might have missed something, but it seems to me that this suffices to satisfy WP:BASIC, as there's a significant coverage in multiple sources that are independent from the subject and actually often hostile to the subject. Moreover, within the political progressive and left-wing area there are so many citations, interviews, conferences (and cancelled conferences: see this open letter, signed by influential personalities, and see this report) , podcast shows (Unauthorized Disclosure, BreakThroughNews), articles in Electronic Intifada, Al Jazeera, The Nation, The Intercept, Salon, The Greyzone, Truthout, AlterNet, etc., that I suspect she might also pass the threshold of WP:AUTHOR as The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • After filtering out the opinion pieces, the blogs, any that are yellow at RSP, etc., which are the two the provide the most significant coverage? Levivich (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didnt you call these sources “questionable” just, like, yesterday at the RfC? And pretty much everything starting with Salon and on isn’t reliable. The Nation is just a minuscule blurb. Volunteer Marek 04:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, am I the only one bothered by the fact that someone can show up to an RfC and be all like “these sources are not reliable!” and then come to AfD and be all like “these reliable sources show she’s notable!” when it’s exactly the same sources? Volunteer Marek 06:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also bothered, but for the reason that they are unreliable and shouldnt be used, and certainly do not establish notability even if they were reliable. None of them provide any in depth coverage of Khalek. nableezy - 06:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Volunteer Marek. Washington Post, CNN, Jerusalem Post, etc., are perfectly reliable sources. The "problem" with them is that we cannot rely upon them to support the claim that she is pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad: that's not what they say. But they show, together with other sources that belong to her political area, that she's notable.
    @Levivich. Here notability results not so much from the depth of coverage in a couple of sources but from the combination of multiple independent sources (as per WP:BASIC) and by the extent and influence of her activities within a given political area (which make her an WP:AUTHOR). If I were two choose my two favourite secondary sources they would probably be the articles in The Conversation and CNN, but I think that an overall assessment of her work as journalist and editor (as made here above by Pinkville) is probably more relevant. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:AUTHOR and tell us which requirement is satisfied. She is not widely cited, she has not created significant new concept, theory, or technique, she has not played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that has been the subject subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, and finally her work has 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. So what in WP:AUTHOR is met here? What source discusses her in any depth whatsoever? Assuming you mean Commentary and not Conversation, that piece is opinion, and while Jonathan Marks is certainly a reliable source on some topics, he has no publishing record on the topics of Israel, Palestine, Syria, the modern Middle East, and as such his opinion is not suitable for inclusion as a reliable source. Additionally, it is a publication of the American Jewish Committee, an avowedly pro-Zionist organization, and the idea that the political opponents of an activist are the ones that we should be basing our biography of them on is just absurd. nableezy - 08:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we shouldn't be basing our biography on them, as you say, but they are good enough for determining notability: why not? Someone may be notable for the amount and quality of criticisms they've been subjected to. Re WP:AUTHOR, my answer is "first requirement". She's widely cited, in her area and also elsewhere. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What work of hers has been widely cited? This isnt a place where proof by assertion is a valid argument. nableezy - 14:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, @Nableezy:I had missed your question until now. When I say that she is widely cited, I don't mean that a given work of her is widely cited as such. As it is often the case with journalists, what is cited are her views and her reports, her statements of opinion and statements of fact, usually quoted by attributing them to the author (e.g., "Khalek said") rather than by attributing them to a determinate work of her (e.g., "As the article 'Whatever' by Khalek reported"). It seems to me that being quoted as an author by Washington Post, CNN, Haaretz, HuffPo, etc., suffices to make you a WP:AUTHOR. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if we are using words in ways other than their meanings then sure. But that isnt what cited means for an author. nableezy - 10:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gitz6666, being called an author by RS is, yes, enough for us to describe someone that way. It is not enough to get them over the hump of notability as an author, which is what WP:AUTHOR is about. valereee (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject is notable WP:BASIC is met. A group of editors can get together to say otherwise, but the subject is much more than WP:BARE. I agree with Pinkville, "It's absurd to claim she isn't notable." Lightburst (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep: Subject potentially meets WP:BASIC based on breadth of coverage - we have multiple independent sources and there is clearly enough information to write an article on Khalek - the case seems similar to that of Max Blumenthal, as Foreign Policy notes: another controversial journalist nevertheless cited by reliable sources such as WaPo to provide balance. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of the coverage of Khalek in the FP piece is the single sentence Most recently, so-called independent journalists such as Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek—both of whom have received funds from Assad regime lobby groups—have even toured government-controlled regions of Syria to whitewash the scale of the atrocities. People are just asserting "breadth of coverage" and it simply does not exist. This is not much off from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Collier_(political_activist). There is 0 coverage of Khalek, and people are just blustering as though there is. I hope the closer takes into account that nobody has been able to actually provide this supposedly in depth coverage anywhere. nableezy - 08:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking specifically at the line in WP:BASIC that reads: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Now the multiple independent sources are definitely there. Khalek is a very widely published journalist. Her views may be a little or even a lot batty, but her media presence is broad. The only question is whether absolutely all of the mentions are too trivial. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that the previous discussion was a pretty strong keep, and may contain more sources than those currently present this time around. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, the al Bawaba story, though not the best of sources, is entirely about Rania Khalek, and the coverage is certainly non-trivial. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BLPs require the best of sources, but yes that one is not trivial. nableezy - 13:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a good example of precisely why passing mentions are not usually enough to pass the WP:GNG; it is extremely difficult to write a neutral or comprehensive article about someone when coverage is so sparse. The history of this article is basically editors arguing endlessly over how to interpret brief single-sentence references to the subject with little elaboration in the sources, and the answer is that if that is all we have to go on then we probably shouldn't have an article at all. --Aquillion (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True. There is actually one source where her views are covered in depth [2], but this is apparently a blog, WP:SPS. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rania_Khalek_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1100265693"