Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Hanrahan

Jake Hanrahan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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 America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 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:

-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]
Why are you guys letting an anti Semitic tankie delete the page of a journalist who challenges the fucks twisted world view. 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. The user RolandR is trying to sabotage my Wikipedia page (which I didn't even create) based purely on a childish personal vendetta. Let me explain...

RolandR is a self admitted fan of hardline communism (check his bio). As a leftwing libertarian, this is something I am strongly against and have said so many times on social media. I am firmly against authoritarianism in all its iterations. I think this is why he is targeting me.

Due to this political disagreement, RolandR is abusing his power as a Wikipedia editor and has taken it upon himself to try and get my page deleted. His self stated reasons for submitting my page for deletion are that I am an "unremarkable self-defined journalist". At best this is simply an opinion of RolandRs', in reality it is an outright lie. Here are some reasons as to why this is a clear lie:

- 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. The fact that Roland identifies as Trotskyite Marxist also makes it clear, that he advocates from a far from neutral perspective on this issue. --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. And if RolandR is really acting based on a personal dispute with Jake Hanrahan, he should be blocked from doing anything on this page (if not have his editing privileges take away completely for abuse). Rebell44 (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Editing_and_discussion

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Editing_and_discussion

[1]