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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Makow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

THis is a BLP without a single decent reference and reads like a hatchet job and is has a completely unbalanced POV. The only reason I have not G10 this is because it survived an AFD some years back where it was already acknowledged that the sourcing wasn't up to snuff. At the bare minimum it needs deleting and stubbing but I suspect that it doesn't meet N anyway. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marginal notability at best, unlikely to be the source of in-depth coverage by impartial sources, all the sources are and are likely to remain polarised and tabloidish. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very poor sourcing. Ref 3 only mentions him in passing and could very well be paraphrasing. Three other of the refs appear to be, essentially, to him and his works. The final ref is to a YouTube video of his appearance on a television show. A number of ghits exist, but I overall doubt his notability. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 14:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC) (removed vote OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment The rationale for keeping in the last couple of times was that he invented a very popular board game, Scruples. One could argue that he's no less notable than Charles Darrow, or that this should be redirected to Scruples. I tend to agree with the nominator that this is a hatchet job, with plenty of "he believes this" and "he believes that". If he became Prime Minister of Canada, I would worry about his extreme views of the world (which I'm glad didn't end up in the Scruples game). Otherwise, it doesn't matter to me if he's anti-Semitic, homophobic, male chauvanist, or whatever. Mandsford 14:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I would like to see this article kept, but then again the lack of quality independent sources about him as an individual are indeed lacking. Has anyone tried searching for some?--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged the article for ((Rescue)). __meco (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is detailed coverage in the news about him, not just his game. [1] is one example of that. Dream Focus 10:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dream Focus' link is a solid source, and I'm seeing a couple other reliable sources talking about Makow in significant detail, as the GNG requires. Beyond that, at least one of his books is in the Amazon Top Ten for sales in its category, and he may well pass WP:AUTHOR for his several books. Obviously some BLP attention needs to be given to the article, but when all is said and done a fellow with controversial, extremist views has controversial, extremist views, and BLP doesn't mean we can't ever ascribe unpopular views to a subject documented for saying them. Truth be told, I see no grounds for deletion here. Ravenswing 14:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He invented something notable, and has leveraged that notability into personal notoriety through his writings. You may not like those writings, but they're out there, and they've gotten attention - notable. Don't see why this guy is getting singled out. Jeremy stalked_{(law 296)} 22:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We aren't !voting on the state of the article at any given time. References were very easy to find. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SELFPUB or trivial coverage, beyond coverage of his game (which already has an article) -- what can/needs be said about him can better be said there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular ^talk 06:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep I am guessing, from what is already given in the article, that he passes WP's notability standards. However the sources are not yet there to prove it. Jaque Hammer (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent work by User:Dream Focus per the Heymann standard which vindicates our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now contains at least a couple of reliable sources; he's the inventor of a popular game and seems notable for controversial views.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.