Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Tobias

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; much improved from the COI version.--Kubigula (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Tobias

Michael Tobias (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Autobiography, it seems claim to notability is mostly based on films, but aside from IDMB listing them, I see no indication of their notability (IDMB contains almost no information on any of the films ... or even user comments, Google doesn't turn up much more). Scott.wheeler (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's still pretty rough around the edges and I consider it a threshold case for notability. If it survives the AfD some more cleanup would be appreciated. And usually, yes, barring convincing evidence, my goal is to flush articles people have written about themself (even moreso if they're poorly done). Scott.wheeler (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Then you may consider revising your approach. Even if an article's current condition is unacceptable (POV, COI etc), this is no grounds for deletion, but for improving it. Iff reliable, third-party sources to demonstrate sufficient notability and to verify basic information cannot be found should an article ever be deleted. User:Dorftrottel 13:19, January 24, 2008
  • For the same time and effort spent disrupting Wikipedia with this AfD, our nominator should have done the basic research that Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires be done before the mad dash to AfD, and made the edits the policy mandates to address any concerns, which would clearly have obviated any justification for deleting the article. That these obligations appear to have been ignored raises significant questions regarding this AfD, and other nominations that may not have been addressed in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy. One of Wikipedia's policies is to flush editors who fail to observe this fundamental policy. Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for assuming good faith and all. I'm not new around here and I feel like it's pretty clear from my nomination that I don't believe that this entry meets WP:BIO. A non-notable award, some non-notable books and a bunch of non-notable films don't add up to notability. I tend start off more skeptical in the case of autobiographies and the first several pages of Google hits don't turn up non-trivial sources, hence me not being convinced. As the only two sources that were since added are subscription-only, and presumably Mr. Tobias wasn't reading them when writing about himself, I still believe that a deletion debate is justified. Scott.wheeler (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You described yourself as having not just an interest, but a "goal" in flushing content, hardly a description of good-faith editing activity. That you are not new and yet are still so unfamiliar with your obligations under Wikipedia:Deletion policy -- which requires a good-faith effort to research notability, edit, improve or merge content before pushing for deletion -- only raises even greater cause for concern. While you are still utterly convinced of the subject's non-notability, a cursory search finds dozens of sources on Tobias, dozens of which are non-trivial discussions of Mr. Tobias and his work. The material in the sources in the article establishing notability is in the sections of article text available even to those of us without a subscription. Even if the links provided were removed from the sources, the articles would still stand as clear evidence that the real world media disagrees in the clearest possible manner with your dismissive snort at this article. While your WP:AUTO issues may have had validity before other editors such as myself came along, you are forced to deal with the article as it stands. As it stands, notability is established. Alansohn (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Look, I'm not sure if you took my original comments personally or what, but please try to adhere to wiki etiquette. I appreciate the work that you've done to bring this article further along, that's great. It could use some more. Please try in the future to word your disagreements more respectfully. For example, the comment just above yours said basically the same thing, without being inflammatory. While we could keep arguing over the semantics of flush, cursory, non-trivial or good faith it's beyond being relevant for the present discussion. Suffice it to say, if there is anyone else reading this far and debating registering their opinion I'd encourage them to do a quick search themselves, keeping in mind that most search results for Michael Tobias refer to others by the same name. Scott.wheeler (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep sufficient documentation. it wasn't all that difficult to find once someone took the trouble to look. DGG (talk) 05:56, 26 January 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.