Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Lowenstein

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 - Peripitus (Talk) 03:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antony Loewenstein

Antony Loewenstein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Have removed line "he is prominent within the Jewish community" as Antony simply is not. Although his views have received criticism within the Australian Jewish News and newsletters of various other organisations, it would be wrong to assume any fame or notoriety extends beyond a small, interested group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.50.52 (talk • contribs)

I tagged this after reading an angry op-ed by Lowenstein that was filled with bad facts and half-truths, I looked him up. This appears to be largely a piece of self-promotion. He writes for places like "Green Left Weekly" and "Palestine Chronicle" but also gets op-eds into "The Australian" and "The Age." I will attempt to imrove the article a litte. Perhaps there is an Australian out there who can tell us if this guy is notable? Morningside Clio (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Monringside Clio

above copied from discussion pageMorningside Clio (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Morningside Clio

  • Keep There was an article about Lowenstein and IAJV in a recent issue of New Internationalist, a global magazine with paid circulation of 75,000. I think there was also an article in Jewish Socialist, the magazine of the Jewish Socialists' Group in Britain. Morningside Clio's assertion that Loewenstein is obscure is without foundation in fact. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Published author of My Israel Question and reasonably frequent op-ed writer in the Fairfax press. Arguments about content have no bearing on whether the subject is notable or not. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm sorry, Lowenstein is notable enough for the nominator, who appears to be a non-Australian, to have read his writing and then actively sought information on him. That they mention "half-truths" and "bad facts" and an anonymous comment in the nomination makes me suspect this is a content and neutrality issue, not one of notability. As an Australian, I would agree that Lowenstein is a notable journalist and commentator, who is certainly controversial in Australia and internationally for his anti-Zionist stance. --Canley (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per those advocating same. Regardless of the nominator's apparent objection to the man's views, Loewenstein writes in newspapers with a wide circulation and has written a book which created an impressive amount of controversy in a very short space of time. That, rather than the accuracy or otherwise of his views, is what says that he should have an article here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep even per the nom: "Although his views have received criticism within the Australian Jewish News and newsletters of various other organisations, it would be wrong to assume any fame or notoriety extends beyond a small, interested group" If an interested group writes about his work in published sources, he';s notable.DGG (talk)
  • Keep, frequent contributor of op-ed material to the Fairfax press, so definitely not "obscure". As above, also the author of a controversial book that gained him a lot of attention. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep. While the nominator may not like what the subject has said and how he has said it, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good enough reason if the subject qualifies as being WP:N based on WP:RS widely quoted and active in the media. The correct thing to do would have been to ask that the article comply with WP:NPOV but that in itself is also not a full justification for deletion. IZAK (talk) 04:30, 6 April 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.