Talk:Patrick Kingsley (journalist)

Query concerning removal of #SadSadIsrael story
Hi Nableezy, I wonder whether you might be so kind as to elaborate on your raitonale for removing the #SadSadIsrael story? You made three claims:

1. "fails WP:WEIGHT"

This is perplexing. The item you deleted was one sentence long. It addressed an event reported on by newspapers in three countries and two languages, as the sourcing made clear. As the sourcing also made clear, no fewer than six different publications reported on the story. (That number has in fact grown, and I don't include any of the Hebrew-language publications that have picked this up since. I do appreciate that you may find e.g. Algemeiner more partisan, which is why I was careful to identify the perspective as "Jewish-oriented." If this is your concern, we could simply delete the Algemeiner citation.) This hashtag was the top-trending tag in an entire country, which is no minor thing; as you will also see in the articles, the official twitter account of the country itself was involved. Given the scope of the reporting and the nature of the event, I would be curious to know on what grounds a single sentence about this event is not justified (had I written a whole paragraph, I would understand concerns about weight; as it is, I made a point of sticking to a single sentence on precisely the grounds that it in the run of the article, anything more would likely be undue. )

2. "dont cover any other column"

As stated above, the fact that this was reported on by several outlets across several countries, the fact that the official account of the government of a country was involved, the fact that the event was the top trending event across an entire country, and the fact that Kingsley himself was singled out in the response and thus became a part of the story himself all make this seem worthy of comment. If you are aware of other instances that meet these or other relevant criteria for inclusion, I invite you most cordially to enhance Mr. Kingsley's page; you will be doing the readers of Wikipedia a favor. At the moment, the page is less informative for your deletion.

3. "and not relevant to a BLP"

As noted in points 1 and 2, the international news coverage, the scale of the underlying event, and the fact that Kingsley was himself named by much of the coverage and thus became a central part of the story would all make this worthy of one sentence. In what way would you suggest that the fact this is a BLP changes matters?

Unfortunately, it may take me a bit longer than I'd like to respond to you here, as I am behind on non-Wikipedia matters, and have a small backlog here. But I look forward to responding to what will doubt be a thoughtful and well-articulated reply, and I am confident we will be able to find language that meets your approval for inclusion on this page.Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)