Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey H. Norwitz

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 keep. Full disclosure: I did !vote in this AfD, however the snow has fallen, so, closing. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey H. Norwitz[edit]

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

According to Zscout370 (talk · contribs) and Geo Swan (talk · contribs), Jeffrey H. Norwitz, the subject of the article, requested deletion of this article at Ticket:2009011410017732. Zscout370 speedy deleted the article on 17 January 2009 per the subject's request. In 2011, Geo Swan corresponded via email with the deleting admin. A summary of their discussion and Geo Swan's comment about the subject's notability:

The administrator who deleted it did so after processing OTRS ticket 2009011410017732. The deleting administrator and I corresponded. They acknowledged that the article had been neutrally written, otherwise complied with all our policies, that Norwitz had no actual complaints about the article. The deleting administrator told me Norwitz simply didn't want a wikipedia article. The deleting administrator told me that their interpretation of the role of an OTRS team member that they felt they were authorized to delete articles to comply with an outside individual's request, when, in their sole judgment, the individual was of marginal notability. I don't agree that Norwitz was of marginal notability in January 2009. Since the deletion Norwitz has published another book. He has broadcast youtube videos. He has made more public appearances. So I think his notability is even more clear cut now.
... For what it is worth there are lots of biographies of Norwitz scattered around the web. So it is not as if Norwitz was trying to reduce his online footprint in order to protect his privacy because he was an interrogator at Guantanamo. Rather Norwitz just doesn't want a biography on wikipedia.
— User:Geo Swan 08:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

After Geo Swan contested the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 28#Jeffrey H. Norwitz, Zscout370 restored the article, writing:

Restored at the time I did the deletion in 2009, I was the one that handled the OTRS ticket. My mindset at the time was to err on the side of caution and have short articles like this removed. Geo has been speaking to me off and on since the deletion and I agree that the content itself is neutral, but still at the time of deletion I was in that mindset. Now close to being the end of 2011, I was a n00b and realized it was not the best course of action now. After speaking to more OTRS staff since the DR was brought up, they felt that it would be wise to restore the material and let a regular AFD deal with the subject.
— User:Zscout370 17:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for deletion to allow discussion about whether the page should be deleted per the subject's request. This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral. Cunard (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established by the sources cited. I don't see a reason he should be allowed to opt out of having an article. He is public enough so that privacy does not seem to be an issue. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia should not delete factual, neutral, reliably-sourced articles on the basis of the fact the article's subject doesn't like it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Since I have spent some time working on this article some might argue my keep is implied, and I don't explicitly have to say I think the article should be kept. But I will say so nonetheless. Norwitz is a real life Buckaroo Banzai or Indiana Jones, that is, he is a distinguished academic who is also a man of action. Doesn't he satisfy WP:ACADEMIC? And, as an NCIS agent he received four, count 'em four distinguished medals for classified counter-terror or counter-intelligence operations. Geo Swan (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Accepting the policy that we can optionally close a truly borderline bio in accord with the subjects wishes, the subject of this one is over the borderline. Personally, I think that was a very bad policy, and inconsistent with the much more important and fundamental policy of NPOV: to say that borderline notable subjects have bios if they like them, gives them a veto over the content, which is pretty much the policy of Who'sWho, a thoroughly unreliable source because it lets the subjects edit their own bios to their own satisfaction. this AfD is an example of why the policy is unsupportable: any deviation from an NPOV policy is always going to be a slippery slope, What's "borderline" is not definable, and it inevitably will lead to errors in judgment such as this one. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The subject is a sufficiently notable public figure, and cannot choose not to be in a Wikipedia article that reports facts already known, and correctly sourced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the holder of a named Academic chair. Style point: I really hate the "footnote stacking" in this article, particularly the mass of footnotes in the lead. One fact, one footnote — and if you feel the need to mention more than one work, bring all of those into that footnote. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is notable. It's bad enough how much non-notable stuff is in Wikipedia; if we start deleting the notable stuff we will have turned this project upside-down.--~T P W 14:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG et al., and per WP:SNOW. Easy consensus is that this person is notable, but understandably wants to "fly below the radar". Many eyes watching the article, and oversighting BLP violations, is sufficient. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2011 (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.