Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed O'Loughlin 2nd attempt

Ed O'Loughlin

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Ed O'Loughlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This was

The prior incarnation before deletion, though equally as unbalanced, was different enough in the details that I'd say it doesn't quite qualify as G4. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a side-by-side comparison of two versions. (Note that the reference footnotes displayed are combined for both articles). --23:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the overlap of editors and IPs between AfDs, see this edit. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of News-related deletion discussions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 23:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I confirm it is a effectively a recreation and therefore in my view eligible for speedy deletion per G4 because it is on the smae subject that we agreed to delete the article - there is no new material, no new claims for notability therefor the same arguments apply. In my view the G4 qualifier substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted is met.--Matilda ^talk 23:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can confirm it is substantially different in that the blogs are no longer used as citations but reliable sources such as the
    Jerusalem Post. -- Avi (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Response -> Delete - in my view different sources have not changed the article because they have not addressed the reasons for which the material in the first place which were that it was not "a neutral, well-sourced, and verifiable article" - moreover- and most importantly for me - notability had not been established - the last nomination asserted he fails
      WP:UNDUE applies and when that is matched against Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy this article shouldn't be here as per the last AfD. No new material has been introduced - only slightly better sources used. --Matilda ^talk 03:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete:

1. Any notability the subject has depends on just one source, an editorial in the
   Jerusalem Post
   , not a news article. The other refs (besides O'Loughlin's biographical information) are from various advocacy groups, not impartial organisations
2. The article should have gone through deletion review rather than re-created.
3. The article was created primarily to criticize its subject for perceived bias in his Middle East reporting for
   Sydney Morning Herald
   . It's a major BLP liability, as a quick perusal of this re-created version's edit history and talk page reveals.
4. There is no balance to the criticism here -- it's all negative. Presumably someone in Australia holds a positive view of him given that he's held one of the most sensitive assignments in Australian journalism for 5+ years.
5. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
6. Given that the subject is, at best, marginally, if at all, notable, I believe we must delete this article.

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep I am afraid this is a bad-faith I do not understand this nomination, especially as the nominator himself suggested that the article be recreates with reliable sources, which this has been. It is not a
  Jerusalem Post is noy a small organization, neither is the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. And both are reliable sources as well, wikipedia-wise. I am an administrator and I can confirm that the article at current is not the same, as it brings reliable sources instead of blogs. Avi (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Responding point-by-point to A. B.:
    1. Accusations of bias are often
       reliable sources
       . Thus, the notability is confirmed by those sources, even if they are editorials or articles in reputable journals.
    2. Incorrect, because this is not a recreation of the old, unsourced article but a new incarnation with reliable sources, so it is not an "undeletion" but a different article.
    3. WP:BLP
       requires …the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious. In this incarnation of the article, such care has been taken.
    4. As I pointed out a number of times on the article's talk page, that is a reason to find and bring documentation of that "presumable" positive view; NOT a reason to delete the article.
    5. Absolutely; and where do you find soapboxing here?
       WP:BIO
       requires multiple citations in reliable sources; we have that here.
    6. Given that the subject passes our notability criteria, the article is reliable and verifiably sourced with
       WP:NPOV#Undie weight
       we must bring the prevailing opinion in proportion to what is found, not what is presumed.

-- Avi (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham, I see no evidence to justify your comment about bad faith on the nominator's part. The fact is that the community, not just Crotalus horridus, concluded just 3 weeks ago that this article should be deleted. You may see things differently and you may believe this article should be kept, and that's OK, but I don't think it's right to level a bad faith charge at the nominator. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment First, the claim of bad faith is unsupported, unproductive, and unhelpful. Please strike it out. Second, the 100 accusations all come from the same defunct, highly obscure pressure group, and do not prove notability. The Jerusalem Post is undeniably a reliable source, but Stephens's sharp rebuttal of an article written by O'Loughlin is not, in my view, coverage of O'Loughlin. The JCPA is a reliable source of a sort, but Fleischer's brief, exemplary mention of O'Loughlin and commentary on his reporting is a pretty marginal basis for a claim of notability. Finally, the rebuttal by the Australian arm of the Free Patriotic Movement says nothing about O'Loughlin specifically, it only takes aim at two specific statements in one specific report. And I'm not exactly sure how Avi concludes (elsewhere) that the Aussie Aounists are a reliable source; I tend to see them as questionable sources even in a "regular" article, and this is a BLP.
  • In my view, an article about a person which contains more than 50% "controvery" or "criticism" information can only be justified if this person is genuinely, verifiably a controversial figure and widely criticized. Note widely, as in "by a wide volume of sources", not deeply, as in "intensely and personally." Given that reliable 3rd-party sources do exist which mention the criticsm of O'Loughlin from partisan groups, it's worth mentioning. But it's not worth overwhelming the article with, and that is the only reason this article exists anyway. <eleland/talkedits> 01:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, where is the coatrack? O'Loughlin is notable because of the allegations of bias, not despite them. The bias claims are what makes him notable, so there is no smokscreen/coatrack. -- Avi (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think he is notable at all. Being criticized once by a pressure group and again in a letter to the editor doesn't make you notable. *** Crotalus *** 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Some clarification. There are currently 3 criticism sources. The problem is that 2 of them are not really about O'Loughlin at all, and the third is unreliable. Israel in the Australian Media, as the title suggests, is really about Australian media coverage of Israel in general. O'Loughlin is mentioned, but the article isn't about him. Likewise, The meaning of Vanunu is an editorial decrying the release of
  conflict of interest. Their political hit piece is not accurate enough for a BLP. So we have 2 sources that are basically trivial, and a third that is unreliable. That makes the entire criticism section in violation of Wikipedia policies, and, without that, the article itself becomes a nn-bio. *** Crotalus *** 01:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • The fact that he is mentioned is all that matters; he is brought as an example of the egregious behavior of the Australian media. But, as you wish, I will bring Fleisher's piece from the Australian Jewish News that is predominantly about O'Loughlin. -- Avi (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added. -- Avi (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a thought: consider deleting this article and adding a sentence or two to the articles for the two newspapers about their coverage of the Middle East. Clearly O'Loughlin has strong backing from his bosses and the papers' owners. Furthermore, his work is always vetted and sometimes rewritten by the editorial staff, so to the extent that it is or isn't biased, that's an issue associated with the entire institution, not just a reporter. There's more substantive sourcing for this approach than there is for the O'Loughlin article and you don't incur BLP issues if you don't mention reporters by name. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Do you have a
    WP:BLP, it is especially critical that we have none of that. Moreover, the source I just added does talk a bit about the "support", in as much as The Age has been accused in print of deliberately refusing to publish criticism of its correspondents so as not not "impugn" their "professionalism". -- Avi (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Speedy Keep I have been watching this discusssion. I think that assertions of Cotalus that certain identities are one and the same are reprehensible unless they are backed with evidence. For this alone I think that Crotalus should be put forward to have his Admin status removed. Mongoosed (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - this is this editor's first edit to Wikipedia (I have bade him welcome) --Matilda ^talk 03:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bid, bade, have bidden. 71.87.23.22 (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I ws writng when someone just deleted what I had said. Thanks for the welcome Matilda. I have been following the archive and I think that it was an ambush from Eleland and Crotalus. The was no proper vote. I these guys cant defeat the logical arguments of Avi than they seem determinined to have their way by cheating.Mongoosed (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 03:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—

few or no other edits

outside this topic.

• • Mongoosed, the issue of evidence was addressed above.^[1]--A. B. ^(talk) 03:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Mongoosed just removed my comment. I am re-instating it below. Majoreditor (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm undecided on keep or delete. However, I'll note that its present form the article is a POV-laden
  coatrack
  and strikes me as un-encyclopedic. Majoreditor (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Majoreditor, this is about as good as this article is going to get if built with these sources and with the intent of criticizing O'Loughlin; it's been a lot worse, trust me. I'm not sure anything more encyclopedic can be written, which is a good reason to delete it. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. Majoreditor, how can it be a coatrack if the reason for O'Loughlin's notability is his demonstrated bias? -- Avi (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - perhaps you could link bias to the criteria for notability under
      WP:Bio - I can't see it - thus if bias is not a criterion for notability, then this journalist is not notable unless you have some other basis.--Matilda ^talk 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • The criteria for journalists is covered by those for creative professionals and to reporduce them form WP:BIO they are
      • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
      • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
      • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
      • The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries.
    • I don't see the article making any assertions to support these--Matilda ^talk 04:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • However, the criteria for any person, journalist or not, is covered by
        WP:BIO#Basic critera
        in which it states:

        A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
        If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
        Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
        

      • We have this person as the subject of multiple, independent sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Further sub-sections of
        WP:BIO are not intended to prevent someone who meets the basic criteria from being considered notable. -- Avi (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]

• By the criteria outlined above (thanks Matilda) the Article should be kept on the basis "the person's work has won significant critical attention". Matilda have a look at the referneces to confirm for yourself that they are "significant".
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
  • Response: I do not regard the cites as "significant" critical attention, they are relatively few from sources which I have to say do not strike me as without bias on this topic - we obviously differ in our interpretation of significant - there has been some unfavourable criticism but not enough to justify an article for a journalist who otherwise has apparently no claims to be regarded as an important figure in his profession and the article continues to strike me as breaching
    WP:BLP as discussed above.--Matilda ^talk 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'd say that there is more than a little subjectivity on your part, when you bucket widespread criticsm of the guy as being insignificant. What's your POV. An Australian member of parliament goes on record in a major Australian daily to attack O'Loughlin, The Editor of the Jerusalem post goes on a rampage against O'Loughlin, Sections of the Australian Lebanese community excoriate him, scholarly works single him ourt as an exemplar of bias, and there is more much more as Avi has laid out for us to read, but Matilda's opinion is it's not significant! What special journalistic experience do you have Matilda? What allows you to be so dismissive? Eh?
      few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
      ]

My POV is merely that of an Australian editor assessing the claims fo the article against the notability criteria. I see the cites for criticism as all coming from a particular sector (including the Austrlaian politician whose views are well known). I disagree that this journalist is as well known as the others you ahve mentioned. Moreover

WP:Otherstuffexists would apply. I would need a more independant source than those already cited (all have their obvious biasses unfortunately - even or perhaps especially the MP) to convince me that this journalist was controversial and thus met the notability criteria on the basis of his notoriety as a controversial journalist. I don't see it at present.--Matilda ^talk 07:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• The Australian did not have to cover the story if they did not think it noteworthy.The Australian Jewish News did not have to go into convulsions about O'Loughlin if he were not noteworthy. Remember he's not writing about Sport so it wont be on the front or back pages. You have to know something of what he writes. And when you examine the writing of people who do - you find only complaints. Just because his area is sectional, not global does not exclude him from Wikipedia. I have not heard of many of the people bioed in Wiki but that does not mean that they should not be there. I am sorry but it just seems that you are just displaying your ignorance on the topic.
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

• Comment Weak delete What might be notable is the aparant sustained attacks on O'Loughlin. He himself probably isn't notable, though a prominent foreign correspondent for two major newspapers does put him on the borderline of notability. Is there a
  talk) 09:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Ed O'Loughlin is not a notable journalist. This biography should be deleted. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is claimed by "Nick Dowling" that what is notable is "the aparant sustained attacks on O'Loughlin". One might question why he is "attacked". He is criticized because of continued violations of acceptable journalistic standards. Since he is personally responsible for a significant amount of the information and analysis of Middle East issues provided to many Australian readers through two major newspapers reaching a significant proportion of the Australian population and SINCE he already had an entry in Wikipedia prior to the introduction of these criticisms by concerned persons, it was and is important that these issues be introduced. I agree with the claims of some others that he is an un-noteworthy individual. Had he not had a biographical entry in Wikipedia, I and most others would not have added one. One has been added however, therefore the full extent of his professional behavior must be made available to the readership.

I don't agree with your claim that "its important" that criticisms of O'Loughlin be included in Wikipedia and "the full extent of his professional behavior must be made available to the readership" as these views aren't in accordance with fundamental Wikipedia policies on neutrality.

talk) 11:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Matilda ties it all together with her point on criteria for journalists/creative professionals. As such, the subject doesn't meet criteria for inclusion, and this coatrack-ish article should be dispatched. Majoreditor (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails the notability standards for creative professionals, and I thought Wikipedia policy was against attack pages which is what this article reads like. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - the guy is a Journalist for g-d's sake. will we delete every prominent figure who has detractors? i see the problems here, and i stronlgy urge all invovlved to not just delete the whole think, but rarther fix it. deal with it and deal with it until we die. thats our vocation as wikipedia editors to never ever finish writing on subjects.--יודל (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. /sigh. Once again, Yudel/Yid, that is not how wikipedia works. If O'Loughlin is not notable, we are not supposed to have an article on him. Personally, I think he is notable; others here do not. But the mere fact that he is a journalist is insufficient. Once again, please review
    WP:NOT. -- Avi (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Answer - mostly as if not all agreed here that he is indeed notable. this isnt the issue, the concern of the deleters is only that his notability is more about his fights with Israel, so if that makes him Notable why should we delete, rather than fix it and balance it?! lets start doing our duties here rather than trying to see where we can censure and delete more info, we are a free and open encyclopedia and simply deleting others work drives away new editors--יודל (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er -- no. If you read through the discussion you'll see that not all editors agree that he is notable, just like Avi explained. Majoreditor (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all, but Most of all. The consensus here is that he is Notable, but the problem is that his notability is more negative than positive lets fix it.--יודל (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachmana L'tzlan, did you read the discussion? Crotalus horridus, Matilda, Major, among others believe that this person is not notable. I think that they are forgetting

WP:BIO#Basic criteria, but that is for other participants and the closing admin to decide. -- Avi (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

We are all powerfull enough to decide, u being a sysop does not in any way shape form make u a bigger decider than me. once u allready said your opinion please refrain from lecturing others on policy we know that u r a sysop but it should not come into play now on this page.--יודל (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mah inyan Shemitta Aytzel Har Sinai?? -- Avi (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If u want to speak privetly in an other languge others should not get your mesege there is email for it. please do not use this page to start persanal skirmnishes--יודל (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who do not understand Hebrew, and surprisingly, this seems to include

Leviticus and is now used as a colloquial expression meaning, "What is the connection between what you just said and the current discussion". Funny, how a user who professes to know Yiddish and Hebrew failed to understand that. -- Avi (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I never ever said that i do not understand hebrew i just told u its not apropiate to write in other languges here, and comes to show how honest the words u write are, lets talk about the subject at hand not my conduct or yours. i beg u please do not revert this page into personal grudges.--יודל (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You sig is in Hebrew!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails notability test as noted repeatedly above. Is a pet hate subject for a handful of pro-Israeli groups. Interestingly is a pet hate subject for pro-Palestine groups as well. But despite all of that, he is just a journalist working for a newspaper, like tens of thousands of others. As regards
  WP:BIO#Basic criteria, the secondary source material does not appear to meet the requirement to be "intellectually independent" as it is all published by groups with stated pro-Israeli (or pro-Palestine) agendas. He has won no major awards, he has never been newsworthy in his own right and is no more entitled to a WP article than I am. Manning (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - He is not very notable in his own right. Some people may argue for it (the article) to be kept and if it is in the end kept you should keep the obvious bias out of it by adding those from a broader range of sources. I agree with User:Manning Bartlett's comments.--Black Squirrel (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has received substantial coverage per the requirements of
  WP:BIO. It's not Wikipedia's fault that the coverage isn't that positive. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - it may not be Wikipedia's fault that coverage isn't positive. It is however beholden on us to ensure the article, should it be kept, is not biassed and ensure we have checked that positive coverage has no been received for his journalistic endeavours or that there is not a broader range of sources critiquing his journalism.--Matilda ^talk 02:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do not claim to very knowledgeable about Australian journalists, but based on the article and this discussion, this person seems notable enough for an article. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Australia is geographically very large but very small in population. Mr O'Loughlin writes for two (sister) newspapers that reach most of the population in her two largest cities (Sydney and Melbourne). The population of these cities and surrounding areas is approximately forty percent of the Australian population. In addition the Fairfax media organisation for whom he works services many other regional centres. He therefore directly INFLUENCES around EIGHT MILLION people of the Western World (based on a population of 20 million) and probably many more. Given that Australia as a nation is relatively influential for her small size in population and given her strong alliance with the USA and other Western Powers, the fact that he can influence at least eight million voters of a democratic nation that is an influential and credible member of the Western Alliance is NOT INSIGNIFICANT. He can strongly influence public opinion and hence VOTERS (Australia being a democracy) and therefore the contriibution of his journalistic endeavours significantly outweighs his relative lack of notability in other ways.

• • Comment You've already voted keep above so there's no reason to do so again. As noted earlier, this isn't the place to push ideological agendas and paranoias anyway, so stop speculating about Mr O'Loughlin's audience. In the unlikely event that that many people read the two papers he writes for (the audited figures say that the total is actually well under a million) that argument applies to every journalist in the papers and notability is not inherited from an employer anyway. --
    talk) 07:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment
  talk) 07:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment It's interesting that an editor whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been in this deletion debate is suddenly quoting Wikipedia policies... --

talk) 08:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• It appears that the subject requests deletion of this article. MER-C 10:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article has already been deleted once I would suggest that this discussion be brought to an immediate close. The article probably should not have been recreated without first going to a deletion review and there currently appears to me to be a consensus to delete the article. --

talk) 10:34, 18 January 2008 (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.