Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Kors


 * 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 among established editors is Kors does not meet biographic notability, Star   Mississippi  01:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Kors

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article violates WP:SELFPROMOTE and WP:BLPCOI in that it was created by and has been heavily edited by the subject via the usernames Jakors (as in Joshua A. Kors) and Joshuaiscanadian. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. People do not get to use it to post autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This post does not come across as a LinkedIn post at all. It sounds like an overview of one of the up and coming attorneys here in NYC.  I do not believe it should be deleted. 128.228.93.41 (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The is about as matter-of-fact as an article can be. And, everything in the article is verified. This should NOT be deleted as it is all objectively true and provides valuable information. Sdeuws (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Joshua Kors is a prominent journalist who testified before Congress. The information here is fundamental to public knowledge.  Dozens of people have edited this page over the last 15 years and so to say that it is one person's autobiographical statement is incorrect. 71.198.112.132 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC) — 71.198.112.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * My dad is a veteran and I think that this article includes important information about ptsd military reporting that I should have access to. Atycer (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is very true- Joshua had done so much over the last 15 years. This has been edited by many many people. This article is not self-promotion at all. 2603:7000:A740:1AFA:19FB:6824:8BE8:BDD (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that this Wikipedia entry on journalist Joshua Kors should be removed as "self-promotion" is absolutely absurd. Kors is a prominent, award-winning journalist whose work on veterans' issues has been fundamental to news coverage of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Wikipedia entry on Kors has been edited more than 500 times over the course of 14 years by dozens of Wikipedia users of no relation to Kors. The person who nominated this page for deletion, Dennis C. Abrams, asserts that edits by user Joshuaiscanadian proves that the article is self-promotion. But Joshuaiscanadian is NOT Joshua Kors, the subject of the article, as Wikipedia's editors can verify. This Wiki article meets all of the criteria set by Wikipedia. It contains important information about the National Magazine Award-winning journalist's history and reporting and contains information that the public should have access to. It should NOT be deleted. MMartist365 (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC) — MMartist365 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Totally agree w/ MMartist365 - how can this article be self-promotion if this Joshuaiscanadian, who is accused of self-promoting, isn't mentioned in the article? Just because that user has the same first name as the article's subject? ..... If the article was selfpromotion, wouldn't it make opinioned claims about the subject? This article just lists facts from Kors's reporting career and Congressional actions. And those facts all have citations from outside sources.... This weird comment by Dennis C. Abrams and his nomination of this article "for immediate deletion" made me --- which means that his "nomination for deletion" is probably an act of revenge or sabotage, not an honest effort to safeguard Wiki policies or serve the public by deleting this article's information from Wikipedia. Trying to get an article deleted as an act of vendetta, isn't that a violation of Wikipedia policy? AnnaBloom127 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * the page was started with someone with the user name that indicates it was this person. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy, and we should enforce policy and delete articles started in such incorrect ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This is absurd that it is even open for discussion. I personally have known Joshua Kors for over 15 years.  I have watched him fight for those that cannot fight for themselves.  He is as selfless and non self promoting as anyone I have met.   I say that this attack on Joshua Kors needs to be dismissed and deleted and that M<r Kors and his reporting and legal work be allowed to move forward. 63.145.108.170 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep This wiki page is a perfectly acceptable resource to learn about Joshua Kors and the contributions he has made. I don't see any reason why this page should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zskyfly (talk • contribs) 23:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I get 4 hits total in Google and one in GNews, none of which show much of anything to support notability (beyond proving he exists). Almost run of the mill. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I am a veterans advocate, and I attended Joshua Kors' address to the House of Representatives about VA benefits, which has been the focus of his reporting. Kors' investigation of veterans’ benefits for ABC News and The Nation and his testimony before Congress led to major changes in military policy that affected thousands of veterans. This Wiki entry about Kors provides important information about a prominent journalist and his investigation. It was written by over 50 Wiki contributors and edited more than 450 times over the course of 10+ years. All of the information in it has citations from trusted media and university sources. That is not self-promotion. Far from it. This article should remain on the site. Wikipedia’s readers deserve to have this valuable information. Vetadvocate2008 (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This wiki page is in no way in violation of any wiki policy. Mr. Kors is indeed an award-winning journalist and all content detailed is both factual and informative - 2 things sacrosanct to Wikipedia and why I donate annually to Wikipedia. NYCRVA (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Unambiguous copyvio. Source: . -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that there have been ten fourteen users who have opposed deletion of this article and nine thirteen of those ten fourteen have not made a single other edit to Wikipedia outside of this topic. I originally thought it was only ten because four of these users were so clearly new to Wikipedia that they put their edits in the wrong place. Several of these users have self-proclaimed conflicts of interest. This is completely reprehensible conduct from an attorney and a journalist. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Joshua has done a lot for the community over the years and leads a fascinating life. I have been following his career from his TedTalk appearance up until now as he uses his knowledge of the law to help many families get through the most difficult predicaments in their lives.

Whether it’s his love for family law or hearing his many thoughts opposing circumcising coming while from a Jewish household, Joshua has led a very interesting life. More and more people will discover Mr. Kors and I’m hoping this site continues to honor that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Luzzato (talk • contribs) 20:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is clearly just fine. The subject is a public figure, mainly for his journalistic work, and the content is appropriate for learning who he is and what he has written.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.213.98 (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Kors has helped untold soldiers through his work to expose unfair treatment of these men and women. He aides families now through his law practice. The main focus of the article is his journalistic career and is concise and accurate. The informative article should remain. Perhaps it could aide a soldier seeking help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramma47 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This article provides information on Joshua Kors, a journalist who has provided significant help to young men who have been wronged by the government. The article is also a source of information for anyone interested in the career and background of Joshua Kors. It should certainly be kept as a Wikipedia source of information.  There is no valid reason for deleting it. 2600:8802:531A:7D00:9918:F1E4:A618:B4A8 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

March 15th, 7:25 PST; 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.110.64 (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nikki Jauron - "I have followed Joshua's work for a decade and his insight is valid and clarity during civic affairs is nonpartisan and uses a fairness in his work. I would be saddened to hear Wikipedia would chose to delete his page as he is a significant contributor to justice in the 21st Century.

I am a licensed attorney and have known Joshua for many years. His work is careful, thoughtful, and impeccable. It also varies widely, is useful to the public, and interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5012:1A00:4927:503:A1FA:9842 (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful and unwarranted aspersions against the nominator redacted firefly  ( t · c ) 08:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Little to no significant coverage that is actually about Kors. In addition, I have requested extended confirmed protection for this AfD in hopes we can have a real, policy-driven discussion going forward. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. If there's limited coverage (I have not looked myself, but nobody has pointed to substantial coverage yet), his best notability claim would seem to be the awards, for WP:ANYBIO. Of the awards he has actually won (rather than been a finalist for), three are significant enough awards to have their own wiki articles: National Magazine Award, IRE Award, and George Polk Award. Looking at the NMA article, only one of the NMA "Public Interest" winners has their own wikipedia article, indicating that this award does not confer wiki-notability. The IRE Award page does not even have a list of winners. On the List of George Polk Award winners, however, almost everybody has an article, so this award may be notable enough for ANYBIO. This is not my area of expertise, so I'd want to hear someone else weighing in that the George Polk Award is major enough to make someone notable. Until then, I lean delete, due to what appears to be a lack of significant coverage. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @LEvalyn If it does end up as a keep on basis of the awards, the history will have to be fully nuked anyway as copyvio. -- asilvering (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wiki readers and editors, I heard that this article about me was being considered for deletion and wanted to add some important context. The article was tagged for deletion by Dennis C. Abrams, an opposing counsel in a recent case. Abrams' firm pressed me to reveal confidential information about one of my clients. When I refused, he retaliated by tagging this Wikipedia article for deletion. We have reported his actions to the Bar Association. The Bar is now reviewing Abrams' misuse of Wikipedia and are considering sanctions. ... Undoubtedly, his actions didn't stem from a newfound passion for Wikipedia policies but as an act of vengeance against an opposing counsel who refused to violate the Bar's code of ethics. ... As for the merits of the case, I agree with the veterans' advocates who have posted here: When our investigation for ABC News won the Peabody Award and my reporting received the National Magazine Award (known in the industry as the Pulitzer of magazine reporting), I did become a prominent figure in the field. That's why I was called three times to testify before Congress -- and why Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton collaborated on a bill, signed into law by President Bush, ordering the Pentagon to investigate my reporting. It's also why the NY Times spotlighted my investigation on its front page. ... For Wiki readers, I believe this information and the sentence-by-sentence citations to outside, original reporting and news sources that have been put into place by more than 50 Wiki editors who have shaped the article with approx. 500 edits across the last 14 years have served the Wiki community -- providing important information and context for readers navigating these critical issues of military and veterans' benefits. Jakors (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously, if true this is very concerning and should probably be addressed at WP:ANI (in terms of any Wikipedia-related conduct concerns). The vast majority of substantial edits to this article have been either by yourself, single-purpose accounts, or IPs. The rest of the edits made by other editors are either minor (spelling/grammar corrections, added categories, etc.) or maintenance related. The issue you covered may be notable, but you yourself do not appear to meet notability standards. In addition, you have violated a host of Wikipedia's policies including WP:AUTOBIO, WP:PROMO, WP:CANVASS. Piggybacking off a response had on the AfD talk page, what important context and information does this article truly supply? Providing critical information and serving as a resource is not the purpose of Wikipedia. But even if that was the point, why would you not write directly about the issue your were covering or even the bill that resulted from the issue, both of which probably are closer to a WP:GNG pass? This would be somewhat understandable when it comes to trying to serve readers, but instead you chose to write about yourself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One additional point I wanted to address: Opposing counsel Dennis C. Abrams, his core objection to this article is that it is self-promotion. That begs the question: Which of the 50+ writers and editors of this Wiki article are motivated by self-promotion? Redrose64 or Nthep or Strike Eagle or LindsayMarie119 or Boisterous Samurai or Iqadri85 or Joshuaiscanadian? None of these writers/editors are even mentioned in the article. And I have no idea who they are. So what about this collaboration is "self-promoting"? The very concept of a widespread, collaborative "self-promotion" doesn't make sense. ... I believe that the core of Wikipedia's mission is to provide verifiable, line-by-line sourced information about prominent topics and figures, information that serves the public, creates a jumping off point for readers who want to do more in-depth research, created in collaboration by a diverse range of unconnected Wiki contributors. That's exactly what this article is. ... It makes one wonder: Who would be served by taking this article down? What Wiki reader or contributor would benefit from having this information about the veterans' benefits scandal and the reporter who exposed that scandal deleted from the public conversation or eliminated as a resource? Jakors (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jakors Again, what resource? How would deleting this Wikipedia article eliminate this information as a resource? It's all taken directly from your own website, which, presumably, will continue to exist whether this WP article does or not. Here is the authorship data for the page, by the way: . As this graph clearly shows, you are the major contributor to this article, and in fact very few people have made substantial edits to the page. Assuming you're also the IP editor (seems a reasonable assumption), the only non-bot editor to make any substantial changes is Ohconfucius.
 * You are not going to get anywhere rehashing the arguments already made on this page. To make a case for keeping this article, what needs to happen is a demonstration of a WP:GNG pass - significant, independent coverage of you as a person. (ie, not articles where you've been asked to comment on something - articles about you.) Can you provide any of this? -- asilvering (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2022 (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.