Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard Horowitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. chaser - t 20:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leonard Horowitz

Leonard Horowitz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Tagged for better refs since November 2007, but continues to lack any evidence of notability through independent, reliable secondary sources. Largely a resumé, and without good secondary sources we can't write an encyclopedic bio. MastCell Talk 22:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just viewed Jeremiah Wright's reference to Horowitz's book as his (Wright's) justification for asserting the U.S. Government intentionally developed the AIDS virus to kill off people of color. People need to know the credentials of this author -- or lack thereof, given that his title of "Doctor" comes from a background in dentistry and behavioral sciences, not medicine or biology. It would be nice to see more info here about Horowitz, rather than see the page deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Convit (talk • contribs) 09:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think he's notable as an academic; a Google Scholar search for "LG Horowitz" gave no works with more than a handful of citations.[1] However, his book, Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola: Nature, Accident, or Intentional?, despite being published in 1996, has an Amazon.com ranking of 1,102 and is their top-seller in the field of AIDS and second in the fields of infectious disease & communicable disease.[2] He also has several other popsci books currently in print. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Good God, that's depressing. :) While Amazon rank of his book is somewhat relevant, a Google search on his name turned up nothing in terms of useable, reliable secondary sources - just a boatload of stuff from the alternative-medicine, conspiracist, and anti-vaccination blogospheres. Oh, and he was apparently warned by the FDA for marketing a homeopathic "cure" for SARS during the 2004 scare (in a nice touch, he marketed it by taking Carlo Urbani's name in vain). I'm probably a hardliner on WP:BIO and notability in general, but I don't see enough to write a decent article. MastCell Talk 16:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • As an ex-virologist, I find it extremely depressing, but I suspect it's worth having an article on the guy if only to make it clear he's a dentist, not a virologist, and so most of his books need to be taken with an appropriate pinch of salt. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Your right he clearly seems to be a nutjob but we still need to have notable nutjobs up and especialy after Jerimiah Wright refrenced him he seems to have a clear case of notabality.--St.daniel Talk 01:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. His name and book were very recently quoted by Reverend Jeremiah Wright regards his controversial views on HIV. To only now delete the article would be a rather blatant act of biased agenda and suppressing information. 88.212.144.188 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I was actually not aware of that connection, though I do make a concerted effort to ignore Wrightgate. Thanks for assuming the worst, though. MastCell Talk 18:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, can't see how he makes WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Unsure. He clearly fails WP:PROF. Apart from the GoogleScholar results cited by Espresso Addict, I did a Medline search for "Horowiz L G". Medline gives 21 articles by him, most with 0 citations, a few in the 1-4 citation range and the top citation hit of 6 for an article published in 1985. These are extremely low citation results for a medical researcher. I am not sure if he passes WP:BIO but, based on the discussion above, I am not yet convinced that he does. Nsk92 (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Jeremiah Wright just cited Horowitz's book in his justification of the claim that AIDS was a genocide against blacks. I think that gets him enough notoriety to justify his position here. WillMagic (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep notable pseudoscience. DGG (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources to be found via Google Books and Google News (archive). Having an article on the subject is in no way an endorsement of his views. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Nomination for deletion was based on notability, but notability is established through mentions in many published works, both print and electronic. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If he's not notable, why is he being noted so much? I got here when I searched on Horowitz and "Emerging Viruses", while reading a transcript of Rev. Wright's recent remarks at the National Press Club. A Google News Archive search on keywords leading to mentions of conspiracy theories about AIDS as a germ-warfare concoction now aimed at African Americans confirms the currency of these ideas, which go back some years and apparently persist even now; if anything, Horowitz appears to be notably exploiting an already notable meme. Ironically, the hard part here will be the "Criticisms" section. It probably won't be easy to find authorities on the relevant subjects who would have stooped to comment directly on Horowitz; that leaves the task of citing reliable sources on the specific elements of Horowitz's brief. Not much more fun than unplugging a stopped-up toilet, but somebody's gotta do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakushima (talk • contribs) 06:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Move for deletion of most tags I've added a lot of material. NPOV isn't easy in cases like these, but luckily, his record speaks for itself pretty well. I think there's a rough consensus against deletion; I've expanded the article considerably; there are now quite a few references. If there's anything lacking, it's how to put him in context. Yakushima (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Move to delete AfD tagging - I've beefed up the article considerably. It's got better context now, and refers to his legit peer-reviewed publications. I think it could use a cleanup, still. Maybe there should be something about Horowitz's fight to keep his daughter from TB innoculation in Hawaii (some press attention to that). Maybe there should be cross-linking to related or identical conspiracy theory articles. But that's about it, and I'm tired of this now. Can somebody just substitute a cleanup tag? Yakushima (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is the type of article to KEEP. It causes people to think and do further research, hallmarks of a free society. Controversial, perhaps, but what's wrong with that? There is, IMHO, everything right about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by contribs) 13:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per my above comment--St.daniel Talk 01:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge the material into relevant articles. The article is currently not a biography and there is inadequate info to write a biography. The article is all about controversies. Ewenss (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, speaking as the guy who has probably put 20 hours into the article by now, you can see as well anyone, Ewenss, that the article cites his peer-reviewed publications, and mentions his credentials in more than one place. Is it "all about controversies"? It's not controversial whether the FDA and FTC sent Horowitz warning letters about his bogus SARS remedy. They did. Horowitz responded openly, publicly, by TRYING to make a controversy over it, by cocking a snoot at both agencies. ("No such thing as bad publicity", it seems.) It's not controversial that The Final Call cited his work about AIDS and Ebola, with conspiracy theories linking Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski into supposed programs of genocide against African Americans. The Final Call DID publish that. It's not controversial whether Rev. Jeramiah Wright cited Horowitz's Emerging Viruses in support of his contention that the U.S. government lied about having engineered HIV. He did. You can go watch that on video. I'm sure there are quite a few biographies on Wikipedia of people who have become notable chiefly because they sought controversy. (The list would probably include a healthy dollop of conspiracy theorists, and "conspiracy theorist" seems to be a label Horowitz would wear proudly, if anything.) YOU need to make the case that Horowitz is not notable. And you're somehow going to have to do that despite the fact he's been extensively noted, in one way or another. Horowitz gravitates toward controversy, is mainly noted for his statements and writing on certain controversial topics, so OF COURSE the article on him is going to bring up the controversies he's been involved with. How could it be any other way? Yakushima (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The material is about certain specific VIEWPOINTS. That is the basis for articles about viewpoints, NOT a biography. Clearly. Ewenss (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(Just deleted a long and embarrassing rant of mine here. Trying again.) If somebody has become notable for his viewpoints -- and Horowitz is notable for more than that, though not much more -- he's still notable. If he doesn't have much non-conspiracy-theoretic, non-quackery information available about his life, it's because of what he's devoted his life to, isn't it? Given the nature of his work, how much can we believe anyway, to the extent that biographical information comes from him? I believe he has daughter, because she's mentioned in Hawaiian news as part of Horowitz's resistance to TB immunization of schoolchildren. I believe he has a wife -- she's quoted in press releases as defending him against against charges of being a public health menace because of his leadership role in opposing vaccination. Do I mention them without mentioning the Horowitz controversies they are tied up in? Do I just say he has a wife and a daughter? I don't believe these people are imaginary, but they do seem to live in their own heads, and their heads seemed to be stuffed up certain of their orifices. How do I treat the man and his life apart from his weird controversies? He himself makes that almost impossible. He's almost notable for that alone. ;-) Yakushima (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"Long embarrassing rant" sums up the article nicely. Cryptographic hash (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Really? I'm trying to stay even-toned. Do you have any suggestions about how I might offer a bit more NPOV? Obviously I can't just delete the words of Horowitz, Rev. Wright or The Final Call wherever they seem to be ranting (it wouldn't leave much to quote from them), but exactly where do you think I'm ranting in article? Yakushima (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator: Having seen additional sources, of which I was not aware, come to light as a result of this process, I'm willing to withdraw my nomination. I think there's enough here to establish notability in light of the Rev. Wright thing. It didn't show up in my Google search, but I should probably have checked Google News (in my defense, I'm trying hard to ignore "Wrightgate"). Anyhow, I'm satisfied with the addition of more good sources that a reasonable article can be written here. MastCell Talk 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment from current principal (though not initial) author Does this close the discussion? I'm not versed in deletion protocols, so I don't know where we are in the process. As long as I'm here: I've gone from 110% KEEP (probably violating WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND here and there under the influence of my certainty) down to about 95% Keep -- or would that be Weak Keep?. This change is a side-effect of earning the dubious distinction of suddenly becoming Wikipedia's #1 expert (probably -- who else would admit it?) on Leonard G. Horowitz. On the whole I'd prefer the side-effects of binge drinking, if a bender could help me forget what I now know about the guy. (Unfortunately I've watched some of Horowitz's YouTube video footage, so he is now burned into my brain as indelibly as certain scenes from I Am Legend.) I'll soon post some discussion at the article's discussion page, about why I think some notability arguments made above (both mine and others) are a little weaker, and why some arguments for deletion perhaps a little stronger, than I originally thought. This experience has improved my understanding of notability and BLP issues; growing understanding of these issues is another contributing factor in my weakening Keep opinion. Yakushima (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2008 (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.