Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold J. Morowitz


 * 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. UtherSRG, I agree with you 100% and I would love to punch this "delete" as I believe that the first indication that a subject may be notable is if a neutral editor writes an article on it. Notable subjects shouldn't have to "rent" an editor to get an article Unfortunately, there's currently no consensus for this view. Even with this and even after disregarding the 2 SPAs, the consensus is to keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Harold J. Morowitz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

While plausibly notable at first, a bit of digging hits issues: he doesn't appear to have acted on his own, but as part of a large group of people for all the notable events the article connects him to. Beyond that, the sources are just terrible. And, finally, the article was created by sockmaster, group account, and likely paid editor, Expewikiwriter (that's an AN thread, forgive me if it gets archived during the AfD). I strongly suspect all claims of notability are highly, highly inflated, and that the person in question is, at best minimally notable. However, the main issue is CSD - this is advertising, which would require a fundamental rewrite to turn it into a workable article, and by keeping it, we encourage paid editing. 86.** IP (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ...And I just realised this is about the worst day to start a serious AfD. 86.** IP (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I declined speedy g11 because of the definition in the criteria - which is more detailed than the unfortunately truncated version on the tag itself: g11 is for "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organisation, a point of view, etc.". This page is, to my mind, neutrally worded and not liable to CSD g11. This doesn't stop it being promotional in intent, or lacking in notability, or anything else, which is why I suggested AfD. Peridon (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, even if it's not CSD-level promotion, CSD is hardly the limits of what can be deleted, it just sets some outlines. This article - with its exaggeration, misleading laguage, and the like, can presumably be promotional enough to AfD, without being CSD able, just like an article acan be not clearly non-notable enough for CSD, but still be deleted at AfD. Though I do think the notability is also highly in doubt, once you trim the gross exaggeration. 86.** IP (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * CSD is basically a time and space saving procedure. It's for getting rid of some of the more b***** obvious misfits. Things not suitable for CSD (products rather than the company, downloadable software rather than the website itself, Aprilis imbecilus rather than Jacqueline the Ninja Hamster) go to PROD, and/or AfD. I prefer AfD, but PROD involves less work if uncontested. Peridon (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but my point (perhaps not well-explained) was to note that advertising is an issue worth discussing at AfD, nothing more. 86.** IP (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doubtful notability, and somewhat promotional. (Incidentally, I don't agree with Peridon: it is not, in my opinion, neutrally written. However, it is not blatantly promotional that I would have nominated it for speedy deletion.) 79.123.72.60 (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. His books have been reviewed in reputable publications. Google Scholar shows he is sole author of papers with hundreds of cites, and co-author of more.  He has been cited as an expert by the NY Times and New Scientist. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have half a mind to agree with Colapeninsula, but I'm afraid that the taint of Sock Puppetry should not be rewarded with the article staying. If the subject is notable, a legitimate author will eventually write an article. No need to reward sockpuppetry and possibly payola with allowing there works to stand. Thought experiment: we allow the article to stand, the paid author gets paid, gets a new internet provider, gets a new account, and does it again. Not good. Thought experiment: we delete the article, paid author does not get paid, goes away. Or gets paid, but clients then complain that the article about them is no longer there and wants their money back. I'm going to have to !vote delete on the ground of not encouraging bad behavior. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Morowitz is a giant in the field of origin of life. Removing his entry would simply be stupid.  I have no idea who wrote this, but it sounds pretty accurate according to what I know.  In any case, Wikipedia would be well served to keep this and expand it.  I assure you there are many, many other people less notable than Morowitz.  Go find them and keep and improve this entry. Phage434 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC). — Phage434 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Blocked sock 86.** IP (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you find reliable sources to demonstrate he is "a giant in [his field]"? As far as other pages are less notable, please see, uh WP:OSE. tedder (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Colapeninsula. To illustrate the point, this in Science has >500 cites and this in PNAS has >400. That isn't something that I come across often. WP:PROF isn't the clearest of guidelines, but I think that shows a "significant impact" (PROF #1). According to this he is/was also editor-in-chief of Complexity (PROF 8). Whilst the article was likely written by a paid editor using socks, that isn't a reason to delete the article - if necessary we can stubify it until an independent editor can rewrite it. SmartSE (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You may well be right; though I do think stubifying a bit is needed (or at least some very careful source checking) - in other articles I reviewed, the paid editor had a strong tendency to exaggerate. 86.** IP (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know what you mean. Assuming this is kept, then I'll try and sort it out when I have the time. SmartSE (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I also just checked factiva and found many more potential sources: New Scientist called him "an expert on the thermodynamics of living systems" the Washington Post called him "another prominent origins researcher" - both are only in passing, but they show that this is somebody that we should definitely have an article about. SmartSE (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per SmartSE. I only spent a few minutes investigating, but found an acceptable number of reliable academic sources that demonstrate notability within his field. That the prose tends toward puffery or exaggeration is a separate issue, and can be dealt with by copyediting. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep of course, as clearly notable. There is however something wrong here, and it is that  this method of having an article written was needed for a person of his distinction. I assume it was someone acting for him who commissioned it, not the subject himself, but whoever originated it would have done much better to simply ask the appropriate wikiproject or any of the people like myself who works on this kind of article. No one who is notable need pay or should pay to be included in Wikipedia.  DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Morowitz is an influential thinker, cited more than 6000 times and with an h index of 40 (from google scholar). He is a true original, and his use of nonequilibrium thermodynamics in studies of the origin of life is a forceful insight. Dmengelman (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2012
 * — Dmengelman (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. I do agree that the article should stay, but sincerely hope someone can find the time very soon to tone down some of the adjectives. I may try to myself, after this decision is finalized.Dcrjsr (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2012 (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.