Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepe Escobar (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Pepe Escobar}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Pepe Escobar}})

There has been extensive discussion about their notability but no consensus was found. I am relisting in an effort to gain consensus. Personally I believe that the article should be moved to Draft space to allow for improvement ahead of moving it back to main space. Gusfriend (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Gusfriend (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Brazil. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: I took a peek at most of the sources and they were either just passing mentions about the subject or a short description about his contributions to various news stations. The article itself seems more like a collection of quotes rather than anything of real encyclopedic value, and none of them demonstrate notability according to WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 23:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

:::{{re|Liamyangll}} Your opinion is very understandable given the poor state of the article when you saw it on 21 February. But per WP:HEY, could you please look again and see if your opinion is changed by the new information now available? HouseOfChange (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

::::{{re|HouseOfChange}} Certainly (I must admit I did not know about WP:HEY before your reply, so thanks for enlightening me about that); after looking at the new arguments made by you and Laptopinmyhands, as well as the new content added into the article, I realised that I had missed Escobar's potential notability by probably not doing further research on him when originally commenting on this AfD. Now that the new content seems somewhat encyclopedic and notability has been largely proven, I have no reason to stick with my delete vote. Moving to Keep. Thanks for improving the article. {{smiley}} Liamyangll (talk to me!) 08:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Much material that supported Escobar's notability was removed by a now-blocked editor. I am trying to improve the article, because the current state of the article is so poor. Escobar's early work was influential (the intelligence pros leaked by Wikileaks were passing it around, for example) but Google doesn't make it easy to find decade-old material ABOUT Escobar behind the enormous pile of material written BY Escobar. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Has done important global work because of which he has been interviewed etc. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Escobar's reporting from Afghanistan just before and after 9/11 was an influential resource "widely cited"; the bio now shows this for 3 different stories. In 2011, he broke the news of an Al-Qaeda fundamentalist leading the NATO-backed Libya revolt (the CIA knew about this but the public did not), another influential story. His "Pipelineistan" theory of Eurasian conflict has been backed by some and criticized by others. Finally, the US State Department has recently identified him as someone who may or may not have become a Russian asset, wittingly so or unwittingly so. For all these reasons we do a service to our readers by including information about him in Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Looking at available online sources; subject easily meets GNG. As pointed out above, part of the issue with the article is that an editor deleted a multitude of sources. This can be easily remedied and there is no value in moving it to draft space while this is being done. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.