Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Horton (radio host) (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 21:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Horton (radio host) (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)

Trying this again because the reviewing tool is acting up. The article was recently recreated despite the fact the previous AfD was clearly gauged as "redirect". I determined a second AfD might prove dissuasive for future attempts at creation (perhaps salting would be convenient). The sources listed for this one are all his own publications. Trying to find any independent sources about him proved futile, as all I found were more articles by him in the antiwar conspiracy website. His books don't appear to be notable either, so he clearly fails both general notability and the authorship criteria. PK650 (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (as previous AfD nominator). While I appreciate Esoteric10's efforts to add citations to this article, and it's in somewhat better shape that it was at the time of the previous AfD, the references added aren't sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. As far as I can tell there's only one independent source cited in the article ([1]), a brief blurb containing a single sentence discussing Horton. Like the nominator I've (still) been unable to find other sources. (I don't think the redirect that resulted from the last AfD is useful – the target doesn't contain much information about Horton, and the disambiguated title is an unlikely search term.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am happy to do some work to further improve this article. I see the source issue and wanted to try and address a few items. As a new user I hope you can bear with me as I explore the many pages of guidelines. What I found: Philip Giraldi discussing Scott, his book Fool's Errand and his interview show and reputation.([2]), Tom Jackson of The Sandusky Register covering Scott's book ([3]), the denver libertarian party reviewing his book as well ([4]). I've also found a documentary that he is in ([5]) that I am searching for coverage of. i would also point out that the blurb about Scott winning The Best of Austin ([6]) may be short, but it does show he is an award winning interviewer for his coverage of The Iraq War. I don't believe the length diminishes that.Fancylogin21 (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment After much reading of the guidelines I want to point out that I work with the subject and his Institute, and that I did not intend nor intend to break any guidelines on CoI editing. I did make very minor edits like dates & punctuation in the article before researching some potential sources and digging much deeper into the guidelines including CoI editing. I hope however my familiarity with the subject and research can lead to more quality sources.Fancylogin21 (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• You're right that the length of the piece doesn't diminish the significance of the award, but the length or brevity of an item like that is useful for determining whether Horton has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, which is what we're ultimately looking for. (Also, the Denver Libertarian Party doesn't seem to exist; what you linked to is the personal blog of a libertarian from Denver. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree about the Denver Libertarian. My mix up, spent too much time reading last night. I have more links that I need to review before posting to avoid this type of mistake. I used strikethrough to note it was included in error. I'll be vetting more links this evening or tomorrow with fresh eyes.Fancylogin21 (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I've looked over a few more sources on Scott that help support WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. From being a speaker in the 2019 Ron Paul Symposium ([7]), hosted by Mises Institute, and including other prominent anti-war Libertarians. Being invited by LP PA to speak about his book, which was covered by CSPAN ([8]), An interview with Washington Babylon covering Scott's book and 2020 election thoughts([9]), and coverage of his book in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs([10]). There is certainly adequate information available to improve the article in this discussion.Fancylogin21 (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This !vote comes from an editor with a COI. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 02:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe the subject meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. I've found some independent reviews of the subject's book in widely circulated publications ([11]), and also found the subject featured on CSPAN's Book TV, and a few other outlets.([12])([13])([14]). There are also 100+ amazon reviews by verified purchasers of the book. His book actually seems to meet multiple criteria for notability itself (WP:BK). I also found an example of the Subject publicly debating Bill Kristol, a well known foreign policy expert and political analyst([15]). The subject is clearly regarded as an important figure among his peers and within the area of American foreign policy. Subject also has 20k+ twitter followers, which of course doesn't establish notability on its own, but shows that he seems to have a substantial following. While I agree with Arms & Hearts that citations in the article are sparse, I have found quite a few additional sources that do establish notability, which should probably be added to the article. Definite keep.Esoteric10 (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per analysis done by Fancylogin21 and Esoteric10, the latter stating additional sources. Article is good enough to pass both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I've been swinging my opinion with keep or delete, and choose delete. Almost all of the sources appear to be associated with Scott Horton, and are not independent of him. I've done a Scott Horton" radio host, and I get no independent results. If it fails WP:GNG, it's not notable. I would've choose keep because it can (or will) be improved as shown above and a currently a COI edit request with the proposed addition of sources. But once again, the sources are not independent of the subject. However, cCitations are just for verification of statements, and you only need enough citations to fully verify a statement. The proposed additions are citation overkill, which is excessive turning the purpose of citations from verifiability to notability. With my statement, as of right now with my argument knocking out all of the keep !votes, it's 2 delete, 0 keep. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 02:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC); edited 02:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The above KEEP votes are for WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Consider these independent sources: ([16]), ([17]), ([18]) which support WP:AUTHOR Combined with a short but important award mention ([19]) which is enough for him to be mentioned in another article (Antiwar.com) builds on his WP:GNG. Scott is notable for more than 1 event (Best of Austin, and his Book coverage - including varying mentions of his significant body of work). Links showing Scott's contributions may not be necessary, and that seems like something worth discussing on the Talk page. Search engines award his frequent show releases and guest appearances very generously. However, Independent sources do exist, are listed here and in talk, and support the previous allowable KEEP votes. Fancylogin21 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2020 (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.