Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad Ballout


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Jihad Ballout

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable individual, A7 declined despite the fact that the article doesn't assert notability (being "Manager of Media Relations" somewhere doesn't confer notability, nor does being a "public relations official", nor does being "communications director"). Miracle Pen (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm gonna wade into this one with an open mind and see what's out there... Here's AME Info with a piece entitled "Jihad Ballout named Director of Corporate Communications, Al Arabiya." Looks like reliable new media to me. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's Albawaba News on "Jihad Ballout from Al Jazeera to Al Arabiya." Carrite (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This snippet from the ''Amarillo Globe-News" illustrates why Ballout is important, as the public English-language face of major Arabic news outlets. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's AN INTERVIEW WITH BALLOUT in the English-language news daily Asharq Alawsat. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's reference to Ballout, the "charismatic manager of media relations" in the book Al-Jazeera: The Inside Story.... Carrite (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's an INTERVIEW WITH BALLOUT conducted by CNN World. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I could go on, I'm just scratching the surface; it's clear that this is a public figure who is the subject of multiple instances of independent, substantial, published coverage. There is so much out there that I wonder if WP:BEFORE was followed by the nominator. The deficiencies of this article are no reason for deletion, the piece needs to be expanded and corrected through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - None of the sources you cite confer encyclopedic notability. Do we really need articles on unimportant people who happen to get interviewed by the press? Ballout gets mentioned a lot because he works in the media. That's why he seems to get a lot of press, because he's part of that press. That doesn't mean that he's intrinsically notable. The article has existed since late 2004, and despite the passage of seven years, the article is still very spare, another clue that the guy isn't notable. Miracle Pen (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand the tortured logic here. He's the subject of a lot of substantial, independent, published coverage in the press because he's part of the press and therefore our General Notability Guidelines should not apply?!?! And because the article isn't perfect that means it should therefore be deleted... That's what I'm getting. This is wrong on both counts, in terms of policy. Carrite (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that the GNG guideline on substantial coverage isn't satisfied. Most of the coverage of Ballout includes Ballout, but it isn't about Ballout, and so there's minimal coverage of the guy. For example, this link is an interview with Ballout, but the interview is not itself about Ballout - it's about the news media. Being interviewed does not, on its own, confer notability (or else we'd have articles on anyone who happens to get interviewed by the press). This link is just a press release, so it doesn't confer notability either; this link is the same. Google Books produces passing mentions of the guy, that doesn't confer notability either. This is why the article is so minimal after seven years - he doesn't have any notability, he just gets mentioned in press releases and gets interviewed from time to time. Miracle Pen (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The fact the the subject has worked for Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera means that we should discount sources published by those media outlets and others affiliated with them, but not the independent media coverage found by Carrite above, which demonstrates notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 *  Delete as failing WP:GNG, these are interviews with the subject, not interviews about the subject. Should comprehensive foreign-language sources be found, ping me on my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk)


 * The point is, he is being interviewed as an expert and a spokesman, and thus is established as a public figure. We needn't have "Jihad Ballout was born in a log cabin in Kentucky..." type articles to confer notability, only substantial and independently published sources indicating the significance of a subject. Carrite (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.