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)

Jeffrey H. Norwitz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

According to and, Jeffrey H. Norwitz, the subject of the article, requested deletion of this article at 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: After Geo Swan contested the deletion at Deletion review/Log/2011 September 28, Zscout370 restored the article, writing:  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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


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


 * 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)
 * Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC).
 * 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)
 * keep per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.--~TPW 14:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.