Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Horowitz (journalist)

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 merge to Mondoweiss. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Horowitz (journalist)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable journalist, outside the context of his website, Mondoweiss. A merge/redirect proposal to the Mondoweiss article was rejected on the discussion page, with a request that it be taken here, so here we are. The article lists no 3rd party references- only self-published material from Mondoweiss, or autobiographical notes about the subject from the various venues where he has published articles. They think it's all over (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As articulated by nom. Unfortunately could not be constructively resolved on talk page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This article should be changed to a redirect to Mondoweiss. (Cross posted to article Talk page and AFD.) Andrew³²⁷ 05:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. - Fails WP:AUTHOR--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Nomination and support for it evidently POV because of his criticism of Israel. Is he really less notable than many of the individuals listed at Category:Jewish American writers? (Check the first five. How many of those could be nominated and booted?) He's published in four major publications. Needs more refs which can be found with a better NewsArchiveSearch. For example, New York Times, Interview on WBEZ, plus books google mentions. So he works for/with Philip Weiss. He's a young guy just getting going. ~~Do we go through wikipedia looking for every individual who works closely with someone more famous to delete their articles?~~ CarolMooreDC 15:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike your unsubstantiated attacks and abide by WP:AGF. If any other writers pages fail notability, you are free to put them up for Afd if that is necessary. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong motivation to remove other writers articles unless I happen on one that's obviously promotional, untrue or unverifiable. But motivation is the essence of the issue and POV happens. Why else would we have WP:ARBPIA if arbitration wasn't needed on all the ongoing POV fights, especially various attacks on critics of Israel? Often involving the same usual suspects, including me Working on such "attack" WP:BLPs of Jewish critics of Israel probably has taken 25% my editing time on wikipedia over the last 6 years. CarolMooreDC 16:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

let me echo the request that you strike out the bad faith personal attack. By your admission - 'He's a young guy just getting going.'- i.e - not yet notable. They think it's all over (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, if I were you I would just walk away and do something you enjoy. Almost no one is reading the article[1] and there is no point engaging with They think it's all over or doing anything they ask. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~One can always think positive thoughts one will not get a deletionist admin unaware of partisan designs to decide on fate. But I better hurry up and copy the current content just in case.~~ CarolMooreDC 00:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, "he's a young guy just getting going" was inaccurate since he's about 15 years older than I realized; in any case the point being that he's sure to have more WP:RS about him; and he certainly has far more than other writers with articles that have not been challenged. Plus I've added some more to the article with more I've seen to come. CarolMooreDC 07:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-per Carolmooredc Dlv999 (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mondoweiss per nomination. Also, agree that multiple violations of WP:AGF on this page should be self-reverted. Frizzmaz (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it my imagination, or is there a different standard for article talk pages than for admin-oriented pages where obvious biases may be mentioned? Rushing out but will look it up this evening. CarolMooreDC 20:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI see clarifying question here. Hope I don't have to chase around a bunch of diffs from contributions or noticeboard or AfD pages. Sigh. CarolMooreDC 02:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mondoweiss Looking at the article it appears to be well sourced. However, upon further investigation there are numerous primary sources. Even the references cite Horowitz as the writer and there are numerous links to his own publication or journalist profile page at newspapers such as the Huffington Post. I took at look at the New York Times article and it was a trivial mention where a conflict was the direct subject of the publication and opinions from multiple people were expressed (one being Horowitz's blog post). Several other sources were the same. In the end, this article (despite there being references) did not provide references from independent and reliable sources where Horowitz was the direct focus of the publication to establish notability. Mkdw ^talk 20:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the nominator has been blocked as a sock of NoCal100 (talk · contribs). Ive stricken his comments. nableezy - 23:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for note. However this same point as been made or inferred above. I'm sure a majority of articles about writers who write for various publications link to either the publications' listings of their writings or to one or two specific articles in the publication. I have never heard this sort of sourcing dismissed as a primary source. If this is to be a major rationale for deleting articles, we can expect deletionists to have a field day with AfDs. CarolMooreDC 23:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.