Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shel Horowitz


 * 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   no consensus. Courcelles 08:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Shel Horowitz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an article about a guy who speaks and writes on green issues, but there's no real evidence of notability. For example the citations in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Christian Science Monitor are minor passing references not the "substantial" coverage required by WP:GNG. Basically, just another moderately successful minor writer who doesn't require an encyclopaedia article. andy (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -
 * (line pause because the coding is going wacky) Okay, I hate the article... Very spammy with commercial links. That's fixable with editing. I first noticed that this guy has a $5000 asking price for honoraria as a speaker. That was a pretty clear tip that while this remains one who just "speaks and writes on green issues," he's probably a big enough fish to merit encyclopedic biography. He's quoted as an expert on fair prices for farmers by THE NEW YORK TIMES. Again, not conclusive, but a pretty clear indicator that this is a guy who is going to clear the GNG bar. And HERE HE IS AGAIN, quoted in a Times article. Not conclusive, but an indicator that should have had the nominator tagging for more sources instead of hauling this to the chopping block, methinks. And HERE HE IS YET AGAIN, quoted as an expert in the Times. At a minimum this is a person firmly ensconced in the New York Times' rolodex of quotable quote-mongers, eh? Anyway, this is all very lite and cursory, but the AfD Notability Detector indicates that this is a probable keep when the smoke clears. Carrite (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn, that was the hardest comment to get coherent in a year. Carrite (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — --Darkwind (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that these are minor mentions, basically just rentaquote stuff. For example in the first of your references he gets 100 words in a 1,500 word article, and in both the second and third references he gets 50 words at the very end of a 1,000+ word article. And none of these articles are actually about him. That's not substantial coverage. andy (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting this page. This guy has written books that have won awards and that have been republished in numerous countries. While he hasn't been quoted at length in the New York Times, he has been quoted there numerous times, as well as in the Christian Science Monitor. To my knowledge, he is known as the founder of the ethical marketing movement. I work in marketing and I never heard anyone use that phrase until I saw his book on the topic. Tuscarora64 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Tuscarora64 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep He is discussed in many books by other authors, such as here, here, here and here. These show his notability and there are many similar examples.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  15:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Two of those aren't independent - his name is mentioned because he contributed a chapter to the book. - MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see lots of quotations and trivial mentions, but not independent biographical sources. - MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep One of the books he contributed a chapter to, "The Great Formula," was a best seller when it came out in 2006. So, no, it was not an independent citation. But shouldn't being a contributor to a best seller count for something? Tuscarora64 (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, not really. One swallow doesn't make a summer. andy (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - for all the pro-keeping reasons stated above. Being a go-to expert for The New York Times is a sticking point for me, and I've never heard of them garnering a reputation for 'rent-a-quoting.' Also, to andy, while I think your efforts to aggressively cut out fluff on Wiki are admirable, I think this is a case where we should keep the page up. Significant Coverage (means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material) is of course intentionally fluid, and having articles devoted entirely to the topic isn't a necessity. There's also not a defined cutoff for how much of an article needs to be dedicated to the subject at hand. I think in this particular case, the content of the articles (which classify Horowitz as the, I dare say, notable expert the Wiki article states he is) trump the fact that the write-ups aren't very long. Mr. Ollie opines they are trivial, but I disagree. Anyways, just because I think the page should stay, doesn't mean I don't think it desperately needs a good anti-puff scrubbing. Maybe some maintenance tags at the top would be appropriate?  Sloggerbum  ( talk ) 21:40, 31 July 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.