Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Toubin (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. My feelings are more or less summarized by DGG; however, I do think that there is consensus in this Afd to keep the article, and that consensus does not plainly violate our policies/guidelines. While I might personally choose otherwise, keep is the appropriate close here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Toubin

edit
AfDs for this article:
Leon Toubin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable person. Fails WP:BIO. First AfD closed as delete, with article creator immediately recreating the article and adding another local source and calling notable. Second AfD was more ambiguous. Over a year later, nothing has been added to the article but more local sources. Almost all sources are local newspapers (failing requirement to be independant for establishing notability) and self-published websites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, article creator appears to be canvassing for keep remarks on this AfD.[1][2] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editors previously engaged in this discussion have been notified - as it is a repeat three times over - and consensus already states that this article is notable. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who previously said keep in the last discussion have been notified. You deliberately did not notify ALL previous editors, most of whom said delete in the last discussion. Nor has consensus stated that this is notable, considering the first AfD said delete and the last was much more along the lines of no consensus that blatant keep. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that has been noted. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation overview:

  • Austin American Statesman article - deadlinks so cannot verify what it says
  • Austin American Statesman slideshow which mentions that he and wife are last two members of a congregation and maintain the synagogue and cemetary
  • book by Myrna K. and Harvey Frommer which contains Toubin's reminisces
  • book by Hollace A. Weiner which contains Toubin's reminisces
  • self-published website for a documentary that contains a quote from Toubin. The documentary itself had limited release - one film festival and an airing on KEDT South Texas Public Broadcasting.
  • self-published website (by Blinn College) listing a scholarship in the name of his parents. Does not list subject's name at all
  • City of Brenham self-published website which deadlinks - supposedly talks about a park he funded
  • self-published website (Blinn College) listing their board of trustees; Toubin's name is only given in caption of a picture
  • article in local paper (Brenham Banner-Press) which mentions in half a sentence his reeleciton to a local board
  • 3 self-published websites listing donors to various causes; Toubin's name is listed with others and no supporting text

Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Toubin (2nd nomination). Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment While I was "notified", I would have commented anyhow because this article is on my watch list. A) Several articles from the Austin American-Statesman are used as sources -- and the Statesman isn't necessarily a small local news source. Regional, perhaps, but it is the daily newspaper of Austin the capital city of Texas and the 16th largest city in the US; in any case, according to its own Wikipedia entry, the Statesman has a weekday circulation of 173,527 and Sunday circulation of 215,984. B) His input was used in developing a documentary for PBS (on which he featured), and while thats not a great fete, it certainly establishes some notariaty. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Collectonian and I have had disagreements concerning notability since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Freda back in 2007. The articles Collectonian has presently listed for deletion need to be reviewed by 3rd party editors. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Experience has shown that such articles can be written for most local figures if sufficient research has been done. This is ann instance where 3rd parties have in fact done and published the research, making it usable here. A similar problem occurred in the past with many articles on Louisiana politicians. I was not happy with those, and I am not happy with these. it represents a change in the level of Wikipedia that I am not sure there is consensus for. As we go on, the availability of local sources in Google books will make the creation of these much easier.I think we need to face this problem at some point. Myself, I do not think the WP:GNG offers a useful guideline either in the positive or the negative direction. We need some real standard not depending on the accident of what happens to be available--of course we would still be bound by WP:V, but it is met in this case & in the ones I am mentioning. Personally, I have no fixed position about how inclusive the local figures standard should be, except it should be a real standard. I !voted merge at the last AfD, and I continue to think such compromises the best solution. DGG (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep per notability asserted and substantially sourced. This is history here folks... not a car wash in Deluth. Categorizing publications prominent in their area as non-notable is contrary to WP:CSB. Each time the article has been revived, it has come back better and better. There will be no need for a 4th AfD... unless Leon has become the subject of a later nom's WP:UGH. No one canvased me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CSB is neither a policy nor a guideline, so it is not a valid argument. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of anything stating that only policies and guidelines can be used as valid arguments at AfD. While CSB my not be the most relevant here, the point that the labeling some of these sources as not being notable when they are significant in their area is a problem and does relate to CSB as well as to the general definition of a RS. Hobit (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have agree with Hobit; This article, and many like it, use sources to which CSB is relevant. I would also include that the uniqueness of this individual should be taken into account. There are thousands of Churches and other Christian religious establishments in Texas and the mid-western United States -- many being maintained by small, aging congregations and each of great importance. However being that they are many in number, their collective historical value is not the same as those who strive to preserve something which is among the last of its kind. Obviously this may be different if we were discussing a small synagogue in New York or even Israel, but...we're not...we're discussing a land where historically there were not many practicing jews, and today even fewer remain today...most of what is left, is their legacy and buildings. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the article does contain some dubious referencing (Geocities for example), the idea that local sources are not independent is something that cannot be stated as a matter of fact. It's open for discussion. The main issue is that the majority of references point to the same source. A little more variety is required. - Mgm|(talk) 12:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The Geocities cite mentioned above is the official cite of the Texas Jewish Historical Society. There are also three very reliable sources used in the "Jewish Texan historian" section. I will start to expand the article to address the issue of variety. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is a local man who happened to be interviewed for oral histories. Thousands of people are interviewed for oral histories (whether these be transcribed into a book or used as a documentary) each year, but we should not argue that all of these are notable, whether or not a local paper covered the event. None of the subject's other activities come close to meeting any inclusion criteria. Note also that Wikipedia:BIO specifically states that if a person is known only for one event (say, giving an oral history), that a specific article is not usually necessary. He could be mentioned instead in any article on the works that his interviews were published in. Karanacs (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I agree that being a source for oral histories is one event. Though there are other reasons for his notability, such as his role as caretaker of an historic synagogue. There are mulitple reliable sources to back up each event. Bhaktivinode (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being the caretaker of a historical synagogue deserves a mention in the synagogue article (which I see is already there), but is not a justification of notability. We don't have articles on the hundreds of thousands of people who take care of older religious buildings (or even buildings on the National Register of Historic Places). Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a detailed review of the sources above. Essentially, most of the sources are self-published websites, many of which contain no information other than Toubin's name in a list of other people. At least one of the sources does not mention Toubin's name at all, but instead concern his parents. The documentary that he was quoted in received extremely limited viewing. Although I've not read the books nor seen the documentary, the descriptions of them make it seem that Toubin is simply quoted in them - there was no research into his life other than what he told them. He was also only one of a number of people interviewed for these endeavors, which implies that his individual recollections are not notable in and of themselves, only how they support the narrative the author is drawing from the broader memory base. Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Concerning his role as caretaker of an historic synagogue, and his role as an oral historian, sources such as the Austin American Statesman, the Texas Jewish Historical Society, and PBS have verified his notability and they are reliable sources for such verification. Bhaktivinode (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see the Texas Jewish Historical Society ref - the only one that had been on the page talked about his mother. PBS has not verified his notability at all - they produced a documentary in which he was one of many people giving interviews. One of the Statesman links deadlinks, so I can't verify what it said; the other is a slideshow and talks about him in the caption of a picture of the synagogue. Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I will add the Texas Jewish Historical Society information to the article. Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Toubin (2nd nomination), many editors, at least 5, cited the Austin American Statesman article as a reliable source that established the subjects notability. Presently the link to the 2007 news article is dead. I am looking for another copy as that article is directly relevant to this discussion as it was in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Toubin (2nd nomination). Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restatement Here's the problem: does someone have to do something notable to be notable, or does the mere fact of being discussed in good published sources suffice, even if what they discuss is not notable? If we deny articles to those who have been notable only for one single event, regardless of sourcing, shouldn't we deny notability to those who have been involved in no significant events at all? If someone becomes the subject of a major news or television story or documentary, documenting that person's unimportant life, does this make him important? The way we have it now, for anything but a person, 2RS=Notability. for a person, RS, no matter how many, about a single non-historic event do not make for notability, but the same sources if they talk about nothing much at all, make it an appropriate article? One or both of ONEEVENT or the General notability guidelines have to go--they are incompatible. (my own view is that both should go, as currently interpreted, they say nothing about encyclopedic suitability.) DGG (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He plainly meets WP:GNG. Perhaps he was selected as a topic by these RS for random reasons. But there seems to be non-trivial coverage in RS. So keep. Hobit (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Bhaktivinode. IZAK (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leon_Toubin_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1069647356"