Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David W. Horvitz


 * 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. Consensus indicates that the subject of the article is a non-notable individual due to a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources and thus does not qualify for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Philg88 ♦talk 08:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

David W. Horvitz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of this article is simply not notable. None of the sources provided are primarily about the subject and are simply off-handed mentions of him. There are also issues with the author Nowa, as he has been disruptive regarding the other David Horvitz of which there is a Wikipedia article. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your comment about is inappropriate here, per WP:ADHOM. Nowa has been blocked for two weeks, then came back and made some constructive, good-faith contributions. Please assume good faith (WP:GOODFAITH). The Afd should focus on whether David W. Horvitz is notable. --Edcolins (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well then people can ignore that comment. The argument still stands that David W. Horvitz the philanthropist is not notable on Wikipedia because none of the sources provided discuss him as the primary subject.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. If the comment should be ignored, then please strike it through using and . This will make it clear that you don't consider the comment to be a reason for deleting the article. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)




 * Comment Overall I would agree that David W. Horvitz might not meet the notability requirement to have a stand alone article. My primary reason for creating it was to avoid future confusion with the artist David Horvitz.  Both are active in the art world and at least twice now the two have been confused.  --Nowa (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Move to Horvitz family. I am not sure whether David W. Horvitz is notable enough for a standalone article (although he seems relatively notable in South Florida and in the Broward County), but what we could do is to move the content of the article to a new article about the Horvitz family. The "Horvitz family-business empire" started by Samuel A. Horvitz in the 1930s seems to be notable. In the 1980s, the Horvitz family was apparently "one of the wealthiest in the nation", with a "$700 million conglomerate". --Edcolins (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an extreme stretch. They're not notable individually nor as a group.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 13:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if the family was apparently said to be "one of the wealthiest in the nation" in the 1980s? --Edcolins (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like Samuel A. Horvitz may be notable enough for a stand alone article. The connection to David W. may be a bit tenuous.  Regarding David W. being notable in South Florida, isn't that enough?--Nowa (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not notability anywhere. Notability requires significant coverage. Local newspapers do not qualify. ANd at this rate, with how common this name is, there's no way to know if these Horvitzes are related to this one.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sun-Sentinel has a circulation of more than 200,000 (daily), and covers all of South Florida (since the late 1990s, apparently). It is not a local newspaper. This page lists about 50 articles mentioning David W. Horvitz (I haven't looked at each one of them). This one, although short, is exclusively about David W. Horvitz, and this one in the NYT about his house. Quite close to being notable to me... --Edcolins (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * barely— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. So far, we haven't enough to keep the article. --Edcolins (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There are now adequate references (10 overall, 7 specifically related to the subject) to denote notability.--Nowa (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * None of those sources are about him. They're about his relatives. That does not denote notability.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You reverted me removing all of the sources about his family. They're not relevant to the subject so let's go through the sources one by one now:
 * Doesn't support notability
 * Doesn't support notability
 * There's no way to even be sure this is the same person
 * Doesn't support notability
 * Doesn't support notability
 * This is a photo and a caption and that's it
 * Doesn't support notability
 * Isn't about subject but his family
 * Isn't directly about him
 * Doesn't even mention him
 * None of these constitute significant coverage. Mr. Horvitz the Floridian philanthropist does not meet WP:GNG. Your disruption of these people with similar names has to end, Nowa.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, it does not help to accuse others of disruption, because they don't agree with you. Interacting is easier when we treat each other with consideration and respect. Please assume good faith. Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nowa was previously blocked for disrupting the article on David Horvitz and the various photographs uploaded by sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets of the artist to the site.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is completely irrelevant here, per WP:ADHOM. --Edcolins (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article was created for the sole purpose of extending the disruption because there had been attempts to add information about this David Horvitz onto the article on the other one until it was recognized that the two were different people.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I don't see any disruption, but rather the constructive creation of an article for the reason you mentioned, i.e. "because there had been attempts to add information [etc.]". --Edcolins (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Making an article on a borderline notable person simply because people thought he was a completely different person that the user was previously blocked for disrupting Wikipedia in favor of is not constructive.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the references cited above in Nowa's keep vote, Ryulong does bring up some valid concerns about citations not being centered around David W. Horwitz. Upjav (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The references cited don't demonstrate notability, in fact quite the contrary. An attempt to derive further sources proved to be a wild goose chase to me.  I don't believe this article meets notability criteria. WCM email 18:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Insufficient references and notability. Upjav (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.