Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Pitcavage (2nd nomination)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark Pitcavage
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No longer notable. This individual's noteworthiness stems mainly from his anti-militia activism 10-15 years ago. JP419 (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "no longer notable" as an AfD argument, but I would like to note that I have created this article in 2005. This was before "BLP" and all, and it would seem that the notability of the subject can easily be discussed within the Anti-Defamation League article. In this sense I would prefer a merge, to preserve editing history, but failing a merge delete would also be arguable. --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Once notable, always notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. He was never very notable. Back in March of 2009, I did my best to salvage this article, (adding several references), but I found it time-consuming and DIFFICULT to find many reliable third party sources, and none that mentioned anything particularly notable.  Just about anyone with a degree can get published, and doing so does not magically confer notability.  Also, to the best of my knowledge, Pitcavage has never been a PAID employee of the ADL.  He's just an enthusiastic straphanger that volunteered. Trasel (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to their website he is the Director of Fact Finding for the Anti-Defamation League. Sounds like a job, but I can't swear to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. It will be sufficient to mention a few of his publications at the Anti-Defamation League article. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I want to emphasize the once notable, always notable principle. The real question is whether he was ever notable....Vartanza (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Vartanza, Eastmain, I would agree with the "once notable, always notable" principle, but I just saw a significant article deleted this month in spite of that very argument, which I backed with the additional argument "Ignore all rules" on the grounds that I thought they were being inconsistent (I tested this theory by nominating Michigan Militia for deletion, using the same argument that was used for Indiana Militia Corps.)  Actually, I think that this stub ought to be merged into the article for the Anti-Defamation League simply because his only notability (as such) was developing the "militia watchdog" website, which is now archived at the ADL website.  He's a footnote to a footnote.  My vote would be to merge, or delete otherwise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JP419 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This looks like a WP:POINTy nomination to me. Regardless, Pitcavage is notable. He's authored a number of pieces still used as reference materials today and has often been used as a subject matter expert by various media outlets. In the mid 90's, Pitcavage was the main "go to guy" on militias. Since notability doesn't expire, the nomination reasoning seems wrongheaded. Passes WP:GNG easily.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that this is a WP:POINT nomination. Has anyone looked at Google's News Archives? He is still clearly widely consulted, eg Newsweek last April . Lots of hits in Google Books and Google Scholar also, over 50 in Google Scholar in the last decade, 25 in the last 5 years. Anyone referenced so many times is notable. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Author of 4 books, numerous articles, an acknowlegment in the Encyclopedia of Terrorism, his works cited by a number of books....looking notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2010 (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.