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


 * 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 and Salt from further recreation Thank you all for a complex set of discussion points. I will take the plunge as the closing administrator and act particularly with regards the consensus and in light of my duty (IMHO) to protect against WP:BLP concerns. -- VS talk 11:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed O'Loughlin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was previously discussed and deleted, but appears to have been re-created. Since I don't have access to the original text, I can't tell whether it is exactly the same material or not, but it is very similar in nature. Although this is ostensibly a biography of Ed O'Loughlin, it is actually a coat rack about various criticisms that have been made of him. This is evident from the fact that the "Criticism" section is as long as everything else put together. Most of these criticisms are by rather small, obscure organizations. There simply aren't enough reliable sources for a proper biography, and it's unlikely that there ever will be. Furthermore, I have my suspicions that User:Adon Emett, who re-created the article, is the same as User:C1818 and the 124.190.*.* IP addresses that were disrupting the previous AFD. This article should be deleted and salted as an irremediable violation of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP. I would appreciate if an administrator could check if the original reincarnation is the same as the one that was previously deleted, and, if so, speedy delete it under G4. *** Crotalus *** 21:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


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


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- A. B. (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:Bio against the criteria for journalists - ie He has not won any prizes for his Journalism, nor written any books - as a result he is not eligible for an article.  The use of more reliable sources may address some of the verifiability concerns but WP:UNDUE applies and when that is matched against Biographies of living persons 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)
 * Delete:
 * 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
 * The article should have gone through deletion review rather than re-created.
 * The article was created primarily to criticize its subject for perceived bias in his Middle East reporting for The Age and the 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.
 * 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.
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
 * 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)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 WP:COATRACK as Mr. O'Loughlin has been accused of misrepresentation over 100 times in the year 2003 alone. There is not one incident, but many incidents that fit the same pattern. I am very concerned that the nominator did not take this to the talk page, when it was an obviously different article. I am also very concerned that the nominator seemed not to read the talk page, in which these issues were discusssed in great detail. Recreating an article PROPERLY, with reliable sources is the way we improve wikipedia. The 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)
 * Responding point-by-point to A. B.:
 * Accusations of bias are often ipso facto opinions, not facts, just as the initial bias is the imposition of an opinion, not fact. The fact that O'Loughlin has a pattern in his writing style has been documented by more than one reliable source. The fact that O'Loughlin has come under criticism from Israeli and non-Israeli sources has reliable sources. Thus, the notability is confirmed by those sources, even if they are editorials or articles in reputable journals.
 * 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.
 * WP:BLP is not an excuse to blank article content that is not liked; otherwise, we should delete and salt article like Ariel Sharon. 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.
 * 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.
 * Absolutely; and where do you find soapboxing here? WP:BIO requires multiple citations in reliable sources; we have that here.
 * Given that the subject passes our notability criteria, the article is reliable and verifiably sourced with WP:BLP in mind, we must keep the article. Remember, WP:NPOV applies just as much to "whitewashing" as it does to "smearing". Per WP:NPOV we must bring the prevailing opinion in proportion to what is found, not what is presumed.

-- Avi (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.   —Avi (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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 Mordechai Vanunu, and, although O'Loughlin is criticized, he isn't the article's subject. Then there's an organization called the UALM, which wrote a press release attacking O'Loughlin for what they saw as overly critical coverage of the Free Patriotic Movement. But UALM is an arm of the FPN, so they have a 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)


 * 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)
 * Added. -- Avi (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Do you have a reliable and verifiable source for the "strong backing"? Merely stating so is a violation of original research and as 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)

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)
 * Note  - this is this editor's first edit to Wikipedia (I have bade him welcome) --Matilda talk 03:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bid, bade, have bidden. 71.87.23.22 (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * — Mongoosed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Mongoosed, the issue of evidence was addressed above.-- A. B. (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * However, the criteria for any person, journalist or not, is covered by WP:BIO in which it states:
 * 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)

Keep most definitely. I believe that the Ed O'loughlin article is very good and that the arguments put forward by Avi are compelling.Adjuro (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — Adjuro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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".Adon Emett (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — Adon Emett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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:UNDUE for somebody who does notmeet WP:Bio and thus it breaches WP:BLP as discussed above.--Matilda talk 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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? Adon Emett (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — Adon Emett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

These "shoot from the hip" accusations of sock-puppetry are preety poor aren't they Matilda? I thought the issue was decided on the strength of the arguments anyway? I suppose not. The issue is decided by Crotalus! It should have been a civil discussion on the discussion page. When Crotalus, A.B., Eleland could not prevail with logic...well they just resorted to their normal technique of put the article straight to deletion (AfD). Dont you think all this is petty and arbitrary? There are plenty of sound refs that O'Loughlin is one of many controversial journalists in Australia. That's his claim to fame. There are Wiki articles on Andrew Bolt, on John Pilger, on Michael Gawenda etc because they are all controversial. And none on any other of the Age foreign correspondents because they are not - you wont find a single critical reference for any of them except...O'Loughlin. What's the matter Crotalus? Got an Eleland stuck in your throat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adon Emett (talk • contribs) 06:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — Adon Emett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Response Regrettably the last AfD on this same topic was also clouded by sock-puppetry. I am trying to keep the sock-puppetry case case simple.  Happy for somebody to nominate an alternate puppet master.
 * The strength of the argument should indeed apply but weight is given to the number of those who support a point of view. It is extremely strange that new users (not just one but two) should appear with properly formatted comments (including signatures) giving their views, apparently never having edited on wikipedia before.  Unfortunately their views were confined to praising the views of another editor - hardly compelling strength of argument approach.


 * How much weight? 20kg, 50kg. Dont make me laugh.

By the way this whole issue has been discussed in many places - no doubt there are new interested parties. Bandying around unsupported accusations of sock puppetry. Quite unprofessional.Adon Emett (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — Adon Emett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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)


 * 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.Adon Emett (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)  — Adon Emett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment I am C1818 and am outraged at the suggestion that Adon Emett and I are the same person. Where is the evidence? Why is it so hard for you to believe that this article is not merely a "soapbox" of one person but represents a serious and evidence-based biographical article of this journalist. He is responsible for a significant proportion of articles on Israel which appear in two major Australian newspapers. He is therefore noteworthy due to his influence on the interpretation and reportage of this particular subject matter to a large group of readers. As an influential journalist in relation to this subject matter to a large group of Australian readers it is vitally important that any behavior outside of commonly accepted journalistic standards be revealed, especially because he is attracted so much controversy.

Another issue of serious concern is the fact that "Eleland" who was responsible for the initial deletion once flew the flag of a terrorist organisation on his web site and freely advocated "armed struggle", no doubt referring to terrorist acts by Palestinians against Israelis. I hardly think he can be considered impartial.

C1818 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — C1818 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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 Support for Zionism in Australia or similar article this can be merged into? --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


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

C1818 (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — C1818 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and if you don't like what O'Loughlin writes this isn't the place to push your agenda. What's notable is that a campaign has been mounted against this journalist by interest groups. The actual criticisms of O'Loughlin are less notable (especially as they seem to have only been made by groups with political agendas which are related to the topics he writes on rather than politically neutral observers on press standards), and he and his employer's response to these claims, as well as any commentary which can be found from neutral parties such as experts, also needs to be prominently included in the article. I'm getting the feeling that this is some kind of crusade I wasn't previously aware of and that deletion is in order, and have changed my vote to delete accordingly. Incidently, Nick Dowling is my actual name, so you don't need to put it in quote marks. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect I think you've missed the point Nick. It's not whether one "likes" or "dislikes" O'Loughlin's opinions - it's that there is documented evidence that O'Loughlin uses Advocacy Journalism. That is he breaks independent standards of journalism to advocate a view in his News reporting. This has got so bad that many comentators have published criticisms of his News reporting, parliametnarians have raised concerns, and scholarly studies have criticised him. If he were a commentator it would not matter, but he is a news reporter, and as such he has attracted attention around the world and particularly in Australia. For this noteriety he deserves a comment in Wikipedia, just like Andrew Bolt or Gerard Henderson.Adon Emett (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — Adon Emett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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, but that is for other participants and the closing admin to decide. -- Avi (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Mah inyan Shemitta Aytzel Har Sinai?? -- Avi (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * For those who do not understand Hebrew, and surprisingly, this seems to include User:Yidisheryid, this is a transliteration of a Rashi at the end of 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. [[Image:face-grin.svg|25px]] -- Avi (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Huh? You sig is in Hebrew!-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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, 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)


 * 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)
 * Keep. Has received substantial coverage per the requirements of WP:BIO. It's not Wikipedia's fault that the coverage isn't that positive. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 02:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I agree. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

C1818 (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC) — C1818 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  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. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment BLP looks highly relevant to this discussion. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

C1818 (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC) — C1818 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment "'please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia'" As this is not a "vote" in the tradtional sense, I surely can "vote" as often as I like. If you counted votes, I would vote once, no problem.
 * Comment It's interesting that an editor whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been in this deletion debate is suddenly quoting Wikipedia policies... --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

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


 * 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. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of Ed O'Loughlin's post

Dear whoever you all are

My name is Ed O'Loughlin - this is my real name, I stress - and I am the subject of this article.

The article as it has appeared in its various manifestations in recent months is a starkly one-sided attack on my personal and professional character which is based entirely on highly partisan sources and falsehoods. The moving forces behind it are anonymous people who do not have the integrity to reveal their identities or interests, and whose malicious intent is quite clear from their contributions to the discussion pages and their vandalisation of posts expressing differing views.

I note that the article has already been deleted once on precisely these grounds, and I am puzzled as to why it has now been re-instated. If it were published in the "old media" - which is to say, by people who have to publicly stand over and justify what they say and suffer the potentially severe personal consequences, such as loss of livelihood - it would clearly be actionable.

Please note that my work has been repeatedly critiqued in the public domain in Australia for the past five years and in that time not one factual error or instance of bias has been substantiated. Please also note that every newspaper reporter covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to stand up to a level of vexatious attack from interest groups and ethnic partisans unknown in any other posting. Nevertheless, all the complaints against me to our internal ombudsmen and to the Australian Press Council have been dismissed as entirely without merit, including one (Press Council number 1305, December 2005) which went to full arbitration. My employers, whose commitment to truth in journalism comes second to no media organisation in Australia or indeed the world, has seen fit to extend my contract here from the original two years to five years and counting.

I am, overall, an admirer of the Wikipedia project but I am disturbed to see how easily it can be manipulated by those hell-bent on imposing their personal beliefs, without regard to balance or empirical truth. I recently watched an episode of the Colbert Report in which the presenter demonstrated the pitfalls of what he terms "wikiality" by editing the page on African elephants to assert that their numbers are exploding. I now understand what he meant.

I am requesting that this article be deleted. If anybody wants to write about me in future I would expect them to at least have the courtesy and guts to put their real name to their writing, as do I. If the article is not deleted I expect this letter be prominently displayed both on the front page and on the discussion page, and that the letter be protected from the vandalism which has been such a marked feature of this supposed debate.

Yours, Ed O'Loughlin, Middle East Correspondent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age

PS contrary to what he or she is allowing this community to believe (see extract from the administrator Avraham's talk page below), “Adon Emett” is not using his or her real name. Unless, that is, the contributor in question really is the Hebrew “Lord of Truth”.

From administrator's talk page:

124.191.88.235' block Hi. You blocked 124.191.88.235 on 10 January for two weeks. I noticed this subsequent edit, the new editor making it and the signature he used -- this looks like he is trying to evade your block. --A. B. (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Let me just say, I'm fine with Mr. Emett getting a fresh start. He's registered under his real name, he seems to be reasonably co-operative so far.  05:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Gee thanks, Eleland. And are you co-operative? Adon Emett (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

end of Ed O'Loughlin's post


 * 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.