Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard Horowitz

Leonard Horowitz

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Delete, can't see how he makes WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep notable pseudoscience. DGG (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]