Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Makow (4th nomination)

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Makow[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - only claims to notability are appearing as a guest on one tv episode, and a (borderline notable) game. While some information does exist about him online, most of these appear to be attack pieces, so I'm personally not comfortable using these as references nor to judge notability. certainly, very little reliable and neutral(ish) material seems to exist. Mdann52 (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several books published by "Silas Green" which seems to have published only those books - ever. In short - screaming example of a self-published writer, hence fails GNG as a writer. Not a noted academic either. One appearance on "What's My Line?" (producer Franklin Heller) puts him in a non-notable galaxy of over 1700 people (876 shows times 2+ per show). Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals requires more than a self-published oeuvre which has not gotten any significant reviews. "Illuninati 2" - no major reviews I can find (" Makow goes where most fear to venture." --David Icke" does not meet that requirement.) "Illuminati 3" - zero "editorial reviews" at all per Amazon. "Illuminati" zero actual reviews per Amazon. "Cruel Hoax" - zero reviews unless you count Jeff Rense from rense.com. Some opine that writing a successful game meets GNG, but I fail to find that compelling at all. Nor does Makow appear to be connected to any later versions of the game. High Game Enterprises no longer has rights to the game - though in 2013 they announced Makow [1] (?) would produce a new version ... someday after they get trademark and copyright back. I doubt Parker Brothers/Hasbro cares as the game is #6969 on Amazon in "board games" - so much for "inventor of successful board game" alas. We no longer use "he is on Google Books" as a measure of notability - especially for a self-published non-notable person. Nor is "he has weird opinions we should make sure readers know about" a substitute for notability. Collect (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have to agree. He isn't notable enough for Wikipedia based on the sources available.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He received a fair amount of coverage relating to his column in the 60's and into, at least, the 70's. I have not trolled through all of the coverage yet but he seems to be notable for being a popular, and very young, regular columnist. This search on newspapers.com returns quite a number of articles. Most seem to be written by him but several are about him. This, plus the more recent coverage, would seem to get him over the low bar GNG seems to have become. As Collect notes his later life and academic life do not seem to rate an article but his early life and/or the totality of material reported about him might. Jbh ^Talk 01:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a kind of destructive activity where first the page is stripped of content until it’s just a stub, then the attacker says there is nothing significant left, so it can be deleted. Most of the material on the page that survived the first three nominations for deletion has been scrubbed. IMO the page should be reinstated to its previous amplitude.

As regards self-published books, this has little to do with significance. More important is whether anyone wants to buy and read the book, and Makow’s Illuminati books do have a wide following.

The fact that he is able not only to write a manuscript, but also is able to master the art of publishing, actually adds to his significance. If he didn’t know how to publish, he would find very willing publishers, given the popularity of his writings. However, by publishing himself, he earns more from the sales of his book.

Note that in the first nomination for deletion it was claimed that Makow’s books were published by a “vanity press” -- that he was paying a publisher rather than earning from his books -- and therefore lacking significance. Now the story is diametrically reversed, but the conclusion remains the same. Of course, if someone wants to delete an article, any pretext is a good one.

The first nomination concluded sensibly that Makow has sufficient notoriety to be notable. Presumably, those who have attacked him wouldn't have bothered if they thought he was not notable.

The second nomination to delete appeared when Makow had written only two books, and the comment was made that the books have not sold. He now has written three more books which have sold a good deal better than the first two.

As regards “real reviews” and “editorial reviews,” one should keep in mind the current situation with the book review business, in that most review journals are forced to ask for sponsorship fees for their reviews. So if we ask what reviews are “real,” those written by ordinary people who have read his books are going to be more candid and spontaneous than editorial reviews.

Let’s look at his books on Amazon.

Illuminati 1 (The Cult that Hijacked the World) has 60 customer reviews. That is a lot. It also has a sales rank at the moment of #199,054. That is very good for a book that has been on the market for 6 years.

Illuminati 2 (Deceit and Seduction ) has 37 reviews, of which 73% give 5 stars. Sales rank of #145,978, also very respectable for a book published 5 years ago.

Illuminati 3: Satanic Possession was published last year. It already has 40 reviews (75% five-star) and a pretty enviable sales rank of #70,158 at the moment.

So where do you get zero reviews of this book?

Search argument "henry makow" gets 283,000 results on Google.

Makow has 5209 followers on Twitter.

In conclusion -- Notoriously notable. JPLeonard (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC) User:JPLeonard is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

@JPLeonard: can I suggest reading WP:ATA? We don't use user reviews, sales ranks nor googlehits/twitter followers to decide notability. Mdann52 (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those !voting to delete do not do so as a "destructive activity" but out of following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am amused that you find "Amazon reviews" to be extremely reliable considering the fact that they are deprecated pretty much universally (see the article on Amazon.com controversies, for starters).
- I find the suggestion that the reviews in Kirkus, WaPo, New York Times etc. are somehow impure and paid for by publishers because the reviewers want money to be interesting. Wikipedia has changed over the years - "self published books" are generally considered to be a lesser category, and the fact Makow has a loyal following in his tiny(?) genre does not make him "notable" as "notability" is generally now considered. "Twitter followers" are advertised online for 20,000 for $10 - I doubt his 5K followers is a strong argument that he is "notable."
- Then try counting actual substantive Google hits - [2] states "Page 22 of about 206 results (0.31 seconds)" which is a teensy bit less than 284,000 web page hits, by a tad. The best part is the suggestion that people who self publish are more notable because they have "master(ed) the art of publishing". Sorry - Maybe Wikipedia is too careful about notability now, maybe not, but assailing those who find Makow to be "non-notable" is not going to sway my !vote here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~SALT~~: Clearly non-notable. 4th nomination??!! Quis separabit? 02:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Collect. 2601:142:101:D361:ED16:1F92:5091:9EE9 (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2015 (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.