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, article needs better sourcing, if no improvements are made it can always come back to AfD at a later date. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Makow[edit]

Henry Makow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This person fails WP:BIO and appears to be someone promoting his vanity press books (which fall under WP:NB) and articles. There is nothing I note that makes him notable unlike other "famous" conspiracy theorists that have wikipedia articles. All of the sources cited in the article are not mainstream, and violate WP:RS. Given the nature of his claims, though, I am unsure of how you could find any reliable sources - I looked. Note to editors: The problem with his appearance in the news articles is that it does not have any relevance to his supposed article - all instances I can find appear to be him getting himself in the news, IE, the news using him as a story about online dating. This does not make him notable, in my opinion. A book search for his books are vanity press (although other books by authors of the same name are not). AnotherObserver (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears to have some notability, but not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I agree with the nom that the references listed in the article do not pass WP:RS. However, there is some reasonably significant newscoverage by reliable sources. GoogleNews gives 46 hits[1], a decent number of which pass WP:RS. E.g. New York Daily News[2], Washington Post[3], CBC CanadaNews[4], as well as these ones [5][6][7] and others. There is also a reasonable amount of coverage in this GoogleNews search of his childhood "AskHenry" column, although I don't know how much that counts now. GoogleBooks gives 45 hits [8] (I am not sure how many are actually related to him). GoogleScholar produces 26 hits total[9], a few of which appear relevant, such as this[10]. Granted, this is not much, but for a conspiracy theorist it is not that bad. Reliable sources usually avoid them. So I think one could stretch WP:BIO here a bit. Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Keep. If better references could be found, it would meet the Reliable Sources test. He certainly has sufficient notability. This should be an articles for improvement candidate--not an AFD candidate. Granted, Makow's views are controversial (and some of them even laughable) but that should not be allowed to color the debate on deletion. Trasel (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Trasel & Nsk. Five Years 05:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep. His invention and original marketing of the Scruples game before it was picked up by Parker Brothers and Hasbro is far more worthy of note than his more recent fringy conspiracy theorizing. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. The board game element actually seems like it could be notable, but the article doesn't really cover, source, or address it at all. Seems like it's playing the right game in the wrong ballpark here. - Vianello (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nsk92, I believe that this person meets WP:BIO guidelines for the reasons stated above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't he create a best-seller game, in addition to being a tenured literary doctoral professor at an accredited university. That would merit a bio.

• • Since when was being a tenured doctoral professor at an accredited university merit a bio? There are literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of people with PhDs at universities across the world. I also note the prolific scattering of "PhD" after his name, which is questionable given that the title has nothing to do with his current conspiracy stuff. 69.134.38.13 (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2008 (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.