Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. David Hornik

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 no consensus. Even discarding the obvious cancassed SPAs. I don't believe there is any consensus to delete here. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P. David Hornik[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable columnist, no sources about him found in a search. Prod removed by editor in first edit ever without comment. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P. David Hornik is an invaluable columnist, writer, and a researcher. A super reporter. It would be a travesty to delete his page!!!, 04:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hornik is an important columnist whose work appears constantly on two influential, much-trafficked websites, Frontpage Magazine and PJ Media. He is also the author of an outstanding book on Israel, which, published earlier this year, has won critical acclaim as displayed on its Amazon page. Hornik is an important participant in the discourse on Israel and the Middle East in particular.Ace edotpr (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Ace edotpr (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Ace edotpr (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace edotpr (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment. He's certainly prolific, and he does get mentioned by other writers with similar views. Search is complicated because most of the hits are for his own work; and because there's another David Hornik who's a Silicon Valley investment banker. I found the following: A recent interview of Hornik in The Jewish Press: [1]. Reviews of his book in Algemeiner Journal [2]; American Thinker [3]; the Jewish Ledger [4], --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 (multiple reviews). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course P. David Hornik should have a Wikipedia entry! He is a significant writer for FrontPage Magazine and for PJ Media (two hugely influential American sites)--and for various other online sites. He writes about facets of Jewish life in Israel and the complex politics of the Arab-Israeli conflict--as well as other subjects such as conservatism, Judaism, and the writing life. A recent review of his book, *Choosing Life in Israel,* appeared at FrontPageMag; an interview with him by Jamie Glazov also appears there. He is a well informed commentator, crucial for anyone wanting to understand Israel's position in world affairs.Janice fiamengo (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hornik is a prolific, skillful writer who should definitely have a Wikipedia entry! Not only are his political analyses of the complex situation in the Middle East powerful and insightful (as also manifested in his outstanding book Choosing Life in Israel), but his versatile writings on numerous other topics such as music, near-death experiences, and Judaism are always engaging and astute.Tkrtgnr (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Hornik is a superbly well-informed and very articulate practitioner of the higher journalism in Israel. Of course he merits recognition in Wikipedia. Edward Alexander, Professor emeritus, University of Washington, Seattle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaengl (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Distinctly borderline case, but there do appear to be just about enough reviews in apparently reliable sources for notability. PWilkinson (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Hornik definitely should remain on Wikipedia. He is one of the most articulate spokespersons for a significant point of view on Israel's conflict with the Arabs, not largely heard and coming directly from Israel. His articles are cogent and well researched. He is a prolific writer for on line sites like Frontpage and Pajamas Media and covers a range of issues. He is not only notable but is going to become even more so now that he has begin to write books as well. Gidmeister (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Hornik is a "boots-on-the-ground," articulate and HONEST voice from Israel. One may disagree with his opinion, but it is disingenuous to argue with the facts he presents. Should he be removed it would be a disservice to the truth...and isn't that what Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to be all about?Newmediajournal (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Hornik has a long and distinguished record of commentary on major websites. Disagree or not with his views, he has an enviable record of accurate and pertinent analysis. It would be a disservice to those seeking knowledge to delete his Wikipedia entry. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is the breadth of information it provides on account of the enormous number of entries available. Deletion of his entry would serve no useful public purpose.TheSirdar (TheSirdar) (TheSirdar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSirdar (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hornik is sufficiently prolific on frequently-visited sites for there to be substantial interest on the part of numerous readers in obtaining information about him on Wikipedia. The entry should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Shafran (talk • contribs) 15:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is incomprehensible that deletion of David Hornik's page was even considered. He is one of the most respected Israeli journalists whose columns are reprinted and circulated throughout the internet. They bring a unique perspective to discussion of the Middle East, because he has lived both in America and Israel.Furthermore, his book "Chossing Life In Israel" and the excellent columns on Judaism, history and religion are outstanding.rsk17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubceck (talk • contribs)

Hornik's book is also reviewed here [5] and he's interviewed about the book here [6].Ace edotpr (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC, and the book is also featured here [7].Ace edotpr (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per above keeps. At the same time, I am troubled by the number of editors with very few edits to their name who have somehow appeared here. That suggests sockpuppetry. See WP:SOCK. And if it continues, I recommend an investigation, and that any editors found to be socking be blocked. But that aside, this does appear to meet our notability guideline, even if just barely.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no sockpuppetry here. People who appreciate the importance of David Hornik's writing, some of them self-identified as writers themselves, have taken a bit of time to say why his writing is important and why he is a significant and well-known contributor to the discourse on some major subjects.Ace edotpr (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When so many newbie editors find an AfD, in my experience it is almost always socking. Given the protest by one of them, that seems to be inviting a sock investigation -- if any are found to be socks, I would think they should be blocked and their !votes appropriately discounted.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reviews in self-published, fringe, and otherwise unreliable sources do not count towards notability, and he doesn't have the coverage without them. The closing admin will of course ignore the obvious sockpuppets/meatpuppets. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Press, Algemeiner Journal, American Thinker and Jewish Ledger are reliable sources, for Wikipedia purposes. They have editorial control, fairly large subscription bases, they would easily pass a reliable source review, they are among the main Jewish conservative outlets in the USA. Unless you think "Jewish conservative" in total = fringe, but we don't discriminate based on that sort of criteria. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:04, 1 September 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.