Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobias Hecht

:{{la|Tobias Hecht}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tobias_Hecht Stats])

:({{Find sources|Tobias Hecht}})

Request per subject, self-assertion of non-notability. {{OTRS ticket|6959514|2013042910008353}} LFaraone 02:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• What a modest contrast to the posturing mediocrities who so often appear in these threads. Wikipedia policy allows deletion at the request of the subject if notability is borderline. There is a slight difficulty here because the subject's citation record is rather good, nearly 300 GS cites for his major book. But by stretching hard he might just be pushed into the borderline category. So Delete at subject's request. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC).

::Hearhear! Agree with Xx (and Ray below) -- I'd probably be arguing for Keep were it not for the request, but I think that an argument can be made for delete so with the OTS, I vote Delete. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Weak keep He's notable, with several reviews for After Life and At Home on the Streets.[http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3631620?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101966251703][http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/ahu.2007.32.1.103/abstract][http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=LAS&volumeId=32&seriesId=0&issueId=01][https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/tobias-hecht/after-life-2/][http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1405420][http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-8223-3788-1][http://cye.colorado.edu/cye_journal/review.pl?n=106][http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63322282.html] If he's an important anthropologist, there's public interest in having a Wikipedia page that explains his work and ideas. If he wants it deleted, maybe this could be converted into articles on his books? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete if the request from the subject is confirmed, the article should be deleted. --BozMo talk 12:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as per the subject. If there were a clearer case for notability, it might be a different story. Note: I was the admin who pointed the subject to OTRS, following a redlinked AFD template on the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per the subject's request. I agree completely with the spirit of Xxan's comment above - otherwise, I would think the subject passes WP:AUTHOR for notability given the references provided in Colapeninsula's comment above, but a courtesy deletion is not entirely out of bounds here. Having a Wikipedia article to watch (but not edit) can be an unwanted source of stress to an academic's life, and the subject's request for deletion is completely reasonable. Ray^Talk 15:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as my default vote when someone of low or unclear notability requests deletion of their own bio. Wikipedia shouldn't cause article subjects undue grief. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm usually very hawkish about letting article subjects determine their own inclusion-worthiness on either the Keep or Delete side of things. This, however, seems a pretty cut-and-dried GNG failure. Carrite (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong keep winner of one of the major prizes in the field. There's little point in having separate articles for the books, when we can have a single article that covers them all. Removing people who feel modest about their accomplishments leaves WP an encyclopedia of the ones who do not feel modest, which is a ridiculous POV bias. We'd do better by deleting the articles on anyone who makes a concerted argument themselves to show why they ought to be included,. We have very adequate ways to protect articles when problems arise, and several ways for a person to update an article and tell us of problems. We owe them the courtesy to keep the article accurate. Anyone who write books under their own name can expect a certain amount of public notice. (I have a very few times supported deletions in cases like this where any article would be inherently unfair--I will check the otrs ticket, which I cannot do from my present location. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. In addition to what DGG argued, WorldCat shows that his books are widely held: Minor omissions [http://www.worldcat.org/title/minor-omissions-children-in-latin-american-history-and-society/oclc/49383585&referer=brief_results 742], At home in the street [http://www.worldcat.org/title/at-home-in-the-street-street-children-of-northeast-brazil/oclc/37361811&referer=brief_results 602], After life [http://www.worldcat.org/title/after-life-an-ethnographic-novel/oclc/61879615&referer=brief_results 241], etc., which are fairly impressive figures for academic texts and pass on WP:PROF #1. The request muddles this a little, but I think David's argument of available tools plus vigilance stand to resolve any problems. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC).
• Keep. Per DGG (major prize winner), Agricola44 (WorldCat shows that his books are widely held), Colapeninsula (his books are widely reviewed) and Xxanthippe (his books are widely cited), he meets WP:AUTHOR. The fact that he is a "modest contrast to the posturing mediocrities who so often appear in these threads" is indeed admirable, but not, in my view, grounds for deletion. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Colapeninsula already listed a couple of mainstream reviews (Kirkus, Publishers Weekly) along with half a dozen academic reviews of his novel After Life, but it was also reviewed in the LA Times [http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/04/books/bk-ison4]. With what appear to be clear passes of both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR, I don't think this is the sort of borderline case for which we should go with the subject's wishes for modesty. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Clear Keep per WP:NAUTHOR #1, at the very least. Per Wikipedia standards, Hecht's notability isn't marginal but clearly within Keep. I do want Wikipedia to show sensitivity to Mr. Hecht's privacy if that's his concern, maybe the few entries in the article's history that have biographical information that Hecht himself appears to have added could be revdel'd or even oversighted. Everything currently in the article is easily independently verifiable, and in fact appears on Hecht's own website. Maybe whoever established contact with Hecht over the OTRS ticket could ask him exactly what the issue is... it does not seem the current article content would be anything to feel a privacy infringement over. Zad68 01:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Tough situation here, I'm basing my decision on the fact that his writing is scholarly and not "pop". Yes his writings have achieved his notability but that was not his intention. Let's give the gentleman a break. If this is kept, at the very least it should be page-protected. J04n(talk page) 01:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

:*Do I understand that you're saying that, even though his books show he's notable, the article should be deleted because it was not his goal to become notable? Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC).

:*I don't understand this argument either. Hecht is actively involved in promoting his own works at his commercial website http://www.tobiashecht.com, and a [http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=tobiashecht.com WHOIS lookup] shows that the site is indeed controlled by Hecht, which would argue against the idea that Hecht is entirely uninterested in publicity. The Wikipedia article does not contain anything that Hecht is not himself hosting on his own commercial site, except maybe where he got his Ph.D. If there's a history of defamatory information being added to the Wikipedia article then absolutely it should be page-protected, but a quick look at the article history doesn't show that to be a problem right now. Zad68 15:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

:::This appears to be significant information and on this basis I strike my vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2013 (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.