| Revision as of 05:40, 20 May 2008 editFive Years (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers26,544 edits →Henry Makow: keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:26, 20 May 2008 edit undoKleenupKrew (talk | contribs)1,323 edits →Henry Makow: very weak keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| *'''Conditional Keep.''' If better references could be found, it would meet the Reliable Sources test. He certainly has sufficient notability. This should be an articles for improvement candidate--not an AFD candidate. Granted, Makow's views are controversial (and some of them even laughable) but that should not be allowed to color the debate on deletion. ] (]) 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | *'''Conditional Keep.''' If better references could be found, it would meet the Reliable Sources test. He certainly has sufficient notability. This should be an articles for improvement candidate--not an AFD candidate. Granted, Makow's views are controversial (and some of them even laughable) but that should not be allowed to color the debate on deletion. ] (]) 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Per Trasel & Nsk. ] ] 05:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Per Trasel & Nsk. ] ] 05:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Very weak keep'''. His invention and original marketing of the Scruples game before it was picked up by Parker Brothers and Hasbro is far more worthy of note than his more recent fringy conspiracy theorizing. ] (]) 11:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:26, 20 May 2008
Henry Makow
- Henry Makow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This person fails WP:BIO and appears to be someone promoting his vanity press books (which fall under WP:NB) and articles. There is nothing I note that makes him notable unlike other "famous" conspiracy theorists that have wikipedia articles. All of the sources cited in the article are not mainstream, and violate WP:RS. Given the nature of his claims, though, I am unsure of how you could find any reliable sources - I looked. AnotherObserver (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - appears to have some notability, but not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Calvin 1998 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I agree with the nom that the references listed in the article do not pass WP:RS. However, there is some reasonably significant newscoverage by reliable sources. GoogleNews gives 46 hits, a decent number of which pass WP:RS. E.g. New York Daily News, Washington Post, CBC CanadaNews, as well as these ones and others. There is also a reasonable amount of coverage in this GoogleNews search of his childhood "AskHenry" column, although I don't know how much that counts now. GoogleBooks gives 45 hits (I am not sure how many are actually related to him). GoogleScholar produces 26 hits total, a few of which appear relevant, such as this. Granted, this is not much, but for a conspiracy theorist it is not that bad. Reliable sources usually avoid them. So I think one could stretch WP:BIO here a bit. Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep. If better references could be found, it would meet the Reliable Sources test. He certainly has sufficient notability. This should be an articles for improvement candidate--not an AFD candidate. Granted, Makow's views are controversial (and some of them even laughable) but that should not be allowed to color the debate on deletion. Trasel (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per Trasel & Nsk. Five Years 05:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Very weak keep. His invention and original marketing of the Scruples game before it was picked up by Parker Brothers and Hasbro is far more worthy of note than his more recent fringy conspiracy theorizing. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)