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. Even after dismissing several ... questionable "keep" opinions, there's probably consensus to keep. Sandstein 21:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Jake Hanrahan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Unremarkable self-defined journalist. Although the article has five citations, one is from the subject's own website, two are from his articles on Vice, one is from the non-reliable International Business Times, and only one is to a reliable source. This confirms just one statement in the article, which is not sufficient to establish the notability of this individual. RolandR ( talk) 16:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 16:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 16:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. While The Guardian is reliable coverage, it is just one news article, no evidence of sustained or in-depth coverage. There's another source here about his arrest, but WP:BLP1E then applies. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Subject is covered in articles in NYT, WSJ, etc. Notable journalist. See:
  • https://www.wsj.com/articles/turkey-arrests-vice-news-journalists-on-terror-related-charges-1441061757?mod=rsswn
  • https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/world/europe/turkey-arrests-3-vice-news-journalists-on-terrorism-charges.html
  • https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/world/europe/turkey-vice-news-journalists-released.html
  • https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/world/europe/turkey-releases-iraqi-kurdish-journalist-working-for-vice-news.html

- KaJunl ( talk) 20:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep ^reasons above. Seems like a slightly odd nomination. " If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". Shadess ( talk) 21:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• ( Personal attack removed). Get your shit together wiki.

I don't think this Wiki should be deleted as Jake has made solid contributions to journalism and documentary production. By having a wiki page people are able to get clear information about his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.120.54 ( talk) 21:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• This is Jake Hanrahan. ( Personal attack removed)

- This year my investigative work exposing neo-Nazi terrorism in the US won a Pulitzer Prize as part of the ProPublica / Frontline PBS award.

- I have worked as an on-screen reported for HBO covering war and conflict on the ground.

- I have worked for Vice News, HBO, BBC News, ProPublica, Wired, FrontlinePBS, and Esquire--to name a few.

- I am verified by Twitter as being a journalist: www.twiter.com/jake_hanrahan

- My documentaries have been watched millions of times on YouTube. Here's one example of a film that I produced for Vice, which has more than 26 million views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM3ElTvF52I&feature=emb_title

I can provide a lot more evidence to show that I am a verifiable and reliable journalist if needed.

I think it is very clear now that the user RolandR is simply abusing his powers as a Wikipedia editor (acting as an authoritarian) to try and discredit my work and ruin my page here.

Please do not delete my page here, it is useful for my work and there is no reason whatsoever that it should be deleted.

• Comment - I've moved some malformed comments that were posted out of order. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 21:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Obviously keep. Jake Hanrahan is quite a name in conflict journalism. The facts stated on the page are absolutely not controversial and the sources in my opinion definitely sufficient. User:RolandR also calls International Business Times unreliable, which isn't even supported by what is written about it here on Wikipedia. So far I don't see any valid reason to delete it. ( Personal attack removed) -- Ermanarich ( talk) 21:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Per Wikipedia Deletion Policy "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." ^[1] so, if there are any issues with this page (and IMO there are not), instead of deletion, there should be an effort to improve the page. ( Personal attack removed) Rebell44 ( talk) 21:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Focus on the CONTENT not the CONTRIBUTOR, alright folks? I have removed several personal attacks that were entirely unnecessary. Please assume good faith. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 21:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • User:CaptainEek I'm sorry for that. I actually didn't intend a personal attack with this. I come from a background in political science, where it's important to note the political bias of a person when discussing a topic. In context to discussions on Wikipedia, I'm going to try to avoid this in future.-- Ermanarich ( talk) 23:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Journalist respected by conflict researchers. Has published multiple articles with Wired ^[2] and Propublica ^[3]. Played a major part in co-creating coverage of far right group Atomwaffen members in active duty American military service. Shared byline on original Propublica articles one ^[4] and two ^[5]. Spawned articles in major outlets like PBS ^[6] and provoked backlash from the far right groups as documented in ABC ^[7]. This should satisfy clause 3 of WP:NJOURNALIST. Motorolashining ( talk) 21:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC) — Motorolashining ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Comment please avoid ad hominem attacks against the nominator. Whatever RolandR may think politically, at issue are notability guidelines. There is no evidence that RolandR is politically motivated in his nomination, and such accusations should not be made lightly and without evidence. You can contribute more productively to discussion by citing relevant guidelines, and providing reliable, in-depth & independent sources sources. Also, RolandR is correct in saying that IBT is unreliable, see its entry on our list of perennially discussed sources which states "There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable." Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Subject is notable. The citations which existed in the page may not have been enough to prove notability, but I found quite a few more citations which I have added to the page, and I think that it does pass WP:N now. -- Jwslubbock ( talk) 22:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Significant coverage from 2015, and additional lower-level coverage listed on the talk page. Jlevi ( talk) 22:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Obviously, there are lots of reliable sources covering his detention in the Turkish prison ( New York Times, World Crunch, Guardian), but he's also pretty clearly notable as a journalist, writing for The Guardian, the Independent, Vice, and Wired. Most importantly, he worked on ProPublica's original investigation into the Atomwaffen Division. Their team's documentaries won an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Award, which qualifies as "significant critical attention" under WP:JOURNALIST. He is also widely cited by his peers, being a consultant for CBS News and reguarly quoted in news articles and the like. [1] [2] [3] [4] gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep As said before has contributed significantly through propublica work to understanding of the far right and Nazis in America and elsewhere. As well as being a significant conflict journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MultiBillyo ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Jake is a well known conflict journalist, and I really can't believe this is a good faith nomination. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Second the stuff said above, as well I have reason to believe that user RolandR might be acting in bad faith. Before RolandR came here and did this the user and I were in disagreement over an edit on the article on George Soros. I had added a sentence to the conspiracy theory section about how groups opposed to the 2019-20 Lebanese protests e.g. Hezbollah were spreading conspiracy theories that Soros was supporting the protests. My source was Episode 59 of Hanrahan's podcast Popular Front, b/c the guest he has on mentions such. I even listed the time in the interview the guest mentions this in the citation. This was removed later on by subsequent edits. The decision was justified by saying that Podcasts can't be sources. I put it back a couple times arguing that since it was an interview as opposed to a less direct source it could be used in the article. Despite this RolandR removed it again and sent a warning my way about reversing edits (I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so am not completely familiar with the culture and taboos). I decided to stop and come back to the subject later on, realizing that Wikipedia does not seem to have any guide articles on how to source podcasts, and before I could fix the disagreement over the edits, I had to help fix the foundational issue on how to source podcasts. So I thought that the issue was done for now until I saw this had happened. I was surprised but also I realized that RolandR might of removed my edits because of their political views and not because they are against sourcing podcasts and they want to remove the article to discredit Hanrahan as a source on Wikipedia. Given the personal attacks on Hanrahan that were stated above before they were removed, they are likely against sourcing Hanrahan's work due to political disagreements with him. Eons of Mollusk ( talk) 05:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment IMO this is still a BLP1E. There's a lot of sourcing for his kidnapping, but other mentions of him are poor. Just publishing in reliable sources doesn't make one notable. I don't have experience with conflict journalism, so if users can substantiate the claims that he is a well known combat journalist, I will happily strike my vote. As far as the sources on the talk page go, the first is a 15 minute interview, which is not independent. The same for that interview in The Defense Post. Reclaim The Net doesn't seem to be a reliable source. I don't see The Guardian article mentioning Hanrahan and The Daily Dot quotes him as the founder of Popular Front. I highly doubt that the Freelance Journalists Union is independent. Unsure about Format Magazine... The only claim to pass WP:NJOURNALIST is the reporting cited by Gobonobo above. However, I just don't see #C3 being met by the ProPublica reporting. He isn't even mentioned in the Emmy award listing and the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia award unfortunately doesn't give us very much detail, but again it was given to Frontline's documentary which was only based on Hanarahan's reporting (the award wasn't given to him for his reporting). I'd appreciate some sourcing that he's a respected or well known conflict journalist, because I just don't see it. A Google search for "Jake Hanrahan" "conflict journalist" shows no independent sources describing him as such. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:29, 26 May 2020 (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.