Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oren Kessler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
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 No consensus. Article has improved substantially since initial nomination in a way that directly responds to the initial delete arguments. A Traintalk 07:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oren Kessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable writer lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how he is notable by Wikipedia standards. Please explain how he meets WP:N or WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While that search produces many results, I'm only seeing about a dozen books that cite Kessler, only two of which cite his analysis; the others cite his reporting from the Jerusalem Post in their footnotes. Also, I'm not convinced that being cited as a source by the likes of Glenn Beck and Robert Spencer makes one notable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion and citation of a writer's work by other bluelinked writers/newscasters supports notability, our opinion of their political views notwithstanding. More books did come up in my search, stuff like Political Islam and Global Media: The boundaries of religious identity, (Noha Mellor, Khalil Rinnawi, Routledge, 2016) "Oren Kessler (2012) explains that the channel is perceived as favouring freedom and democracy against dictatorships, but clearly appears to be supporting Islamic parties. Kessler demonstrates how the channel promoted the..." E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mention Beck and Spencer because of "[my] opinion of their political views" -- I mentioned them because most of what they say and write is demonstrably untrue, and being cited as a source by such charlatans ought not to be regarded as a measure of notability. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I did a little expand & source. I did not bring the article up to what it should and can become. There is much more material out there, of course, Kessler is a well-known and well-regarded journalist and analyst. the problem with searching for someone like this, a familiar proplem with notable people who do not yet have articles, especially analysts and writers, is that a search brings up too many sources, so many that it is hard for editors to come up with the proper keywords. I could tell instantly that he is a well-known, widely-cited, widely-interviewed foreign policy guy. figuring out where to find substantive coverage of things he has done took a little longer. But it's out there, this: [2] search, for example.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The searches done by E. M. Gregory (above) demonstrate that he is notable. Someone cited by multiple scholarly books easily qualifies. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"much depends on who does the citing"? We get that Glenn Beck is not your cup of tea, not mine either, but IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy-based reason for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2016 (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.