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. There is a clear consensus and the nomination has been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Moskowitz[edit]

Miriam Moskowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I am not sure that she was notable enough to grant an independent article Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Her notability is still in doubt. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 09:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some sources to the article. She was of the minor Atomic spies in the 1950s (she was convicted alongside of her romantic/business partner - receiving 2 years to his seven), and the friend of Ethel Rosenberg - there is some enduring coverage of that in terms of book coverage that might have been sufficient for notability in and of itself. On top of that, as one of the longest living atomic spies, she's received more press coverage (national / international level) in 2010 around her book release (the book, an autobiography, would pass NBOOK but the subject is probably a better article than the autobio) received significant coverage. In 2014, she received another bout of wide coverage for her attempt to overturn (unsuccessfully) the 1950 conviction. She's been covered a few additional times as well. All and all - there is quite a bit of in-depth coverage of this individual.Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability is shown by Icewhiz's improvements. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This nomination appears to be another example of our endemic PRESENTISM. Moskowitz drew WP:SIGCOV nationally back in her day, and has been a subject of the rivers of ink spilled over McCarthyism and American Communists (yes, she was a card-carrying member) ever since. Note, for example, this headline from a 2014 Moskowitz profile article, part of a 2014 Moskowitz news cycle: Still guilty after all these years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article demonstrated notability prior to the expansion of the article and this appears to be another WP:BEFORE issue. Thanks to all of those involved in the creation and expansion of this article, particularly after the nomination for deletion. As it stands now, there is no doubt about notability based on the ample reliable and verifiable sources about her over the span of several decades. Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please see the revised article regarding notability and, in particular, the connection of Moskowitz's conviction to the Rosenberg trial.Guroed (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• After Icewhiz improvements, I withdraw my nomination. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2018 (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.