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. As in the previous AFD, there is no clear consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P. David Hornik (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)

A BLP about a non-notable columnist, still no sources about him found in a search. Doesn't meet inclusion standards but, more importantly, doesn't have enough sources to justify or sustain a biography of a living person. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 (multiple reviews). -- GreenC 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotyional article on the author of a single book-- a book which is found in a total of 2 libraries, according to Worldcat. [1]. I don't see how he is at all likely to be notable for his other work when his book on the same general subject was such a failure,. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews in three blue-linked journals per WP:AUTHOR #3 is notable. Nothing in the guidelines about WorldCat/Goodread/Libraything holdings, etc.. for a reason - notability is not a popularity contest - this author's conservative views are not very popular. -- GreenC 14:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per meeting WP:AUTHOR #3, his political views nothwithstanding. Article IS sourced. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are the sources about the subject? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't think these local/fringe book reviews meet our standards for purposes of establishing notability in reliable sources. He writes a lot but does not appear to be notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 (multiple independent reviews, all in notable blue-linked journals). Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he is a regular columnist in several recognized political journals, and note that his articles are cited in books, including books by major intellectuals including scholars Leonard A. Cole, (Terror: How Israel Has Coped and What America Can Learn, Indiana University Press, 2007), Matthew Levitt (Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, Yale University Press, 2008.) and writer Sayed Kashua (Let it be Morning, Grove Press, 2007) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 13:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, reviews of his book in a few fringe journals and newspapers might be an argument for notability for the book, but not for the author. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

You seem inclined to disparage the RS blue-linked refs as "fringe". Why is that? Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the sources are not fringe. Also, reviews of works are considered a sign of notability for creative professionals. -- GreenC 13:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One of the journals is Algemeiner. On February 22 Algemeiner's editor in chief, David Efune, was interviewed on CNN [[2]]Ace edotpr (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep P.David Hornik writes regularly for a number of respected political journals most notably Frontpage.Com. Algemeiner, PJMedia.Com Jerusalem Post He is one of the most well- known and respected journalists reporting on Israeli affairs from a Conservative point- of-view. I cannot understand at all the effort to delete his entry. I wonder if it has a political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalom Freedman (talk • contribs) 11:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom, I voted Keep also, but it's not a case of bias. Thargor is just persistent as you can see from his homepage, if it fails the first time Thargor saves it for later to try again. That's considered acceptable up to a point. There is no pattern of bias (ie. jewish or conservative topics). -- GreenC 13:02, 25 February 2015 (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.