Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan S. Tobin

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. Clear consensus here that the subject is notable, even if the existing article has many problems and needs extensive editing, possibly a complete rewrite, to bring into conformance with our standards. In lieu of this work happening expeditiously, if somebody wants to stubify this for now, that would be OK. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan S. Tobin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is hopelessly promotional and very likely autobiographical. I came very close to nominating for CSD per G11. All of the listed awards lack citations and most are not notable. The notability of the subject is not clear, though it is possible he may pass GNG. Many of the sources do no more than establish that he is an author and columnist. But even if he does pass GNG the article is far too promotional and would need a complete rewrite to be kept. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough indepdent sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is no question in my mind whether Tobin is notable (he is), but the present article is so awful that it may be irredeemable. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article and available in the media establish his claim of notability. I agree in many ways with the nominator that the article needs rework and restructuring, but AfD is not cleanup. Alansohn (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is more than a cleanup. The article is almost purely promotional and as I noted in my nominating statement, would require something close to a complete rewrite to be kept. We don't keep advertisements masquerading as encyclopedic articles. See WP:NOTADVERT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. Subject is clearly notable per WP:JOURNALIST and just plain old WP:GNG. Recent apparant COI editing diff by Jstobinpa on 26.12.2017 could be rolled back or the article could be stubbed down to his notable positions (JNS, Commentary, The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia, Connecticut Jewish Ledger. Maybe also mention he is a contributing writer elsewhere) and notable books.Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good sources which address the subject. I understand sometimes AfD may be an outlet for deletion per WP:TNT but I don't see this here. I will take a stab at pruning it. Ifnord (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not cleanup and strong sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2018 (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.