Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Tobinick (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 Keep. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Tobinick (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)

Not a sufficiently notable person for a bio - fails WP:PROF. There's some breadth of coverage, but not enough depth. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. have trimmed a bunch of copy and paste violations from the article. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources like this [1] may get him over the bar. He is the proponent of a controversial treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That is true, but are any sources on the controversy/ongoing legal action reliable enough for use, especially given the threshold of WP:BLP? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would say the Science-Based Medicine pieces are sufficient to show notability. Likely not the notability this person wished when they had their article created on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Another interested overview [2] As is this [3] and the Amgen statement [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not clear to me that a self-described "daily science blog" actually counts as a reliable source. If it doesn't, then it doesn't matter how much they write about him: their writings will not count towards notability. Or, to put it another way, we need sources that we could actually cite in the article, and I suspect that you'd object to anyone using these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  SBM is probably reliable on WP:FRINGE topics per WP:PARITY, but is probably not the best sources to build a biographical article around. Yobol (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say this is a topic about a fringe topic. Similar to Andrew Wakefeild or the CCSVI gentleman. I agree none of the sources are sufficient to support medical content but this is not really medical content. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia will appreciate in due course that this systematic attack, which presumably will succeed, is based on a few laboratories and pharmaceutical companies with large commitment and investment in developing an important treatment for certain brain diseases being beaten to the finishing line by a small player who they want to squash for purely commercial reasons. They have been at it for years. Quite appalling to watch from the sidelines.Horseman49 (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)— Horseman49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Welcome new account. Really? A super expensive drug which supposedly treats some of the most common conditions known to people is being ignored by the manufacturer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  "Ignored" is not the right word; the manufacturer has expressly disclaimed it as being "biologically improbable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge any relevant material to Etanercept. Neutral I see no indication that the person meets WP:PROF. Sources seem much more focused on his treatment than him, and as such an article about him will lead to a WP:COATRACK situation. Better to discuss his treatment at Etanercept, and remove the coatrack. Yobol (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that would work. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strike delete. New sources, especially the two LA Times articles have significant coverage of Tobinick. Not enough to change to keep, but enough to make me not sure delete is best now. Yobol (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge into Etanercept. Changed to Abstain. Changed to Keep because the article was recently expanded again with more reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC) The person is not notable per WP:PROF. This is yet another WP:COATRACK article that will likely be deleted or merged. Let's get it done this time. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure he is notable within the article on etanercept. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those articles I'd rather delete per WP:IAR. It is not really about Etanercept or Edward Tobinick. This is a collection of controversies. QuackGuru (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I did a database search and found, for example, a 2002 article about him in the LA Times. And a 2012 article in the Sun-Sentinel. His h-index is 11, so I agree he's not notable as an academic. But he appears to generate enough coverage in independent sources to meet WP:BIO. In fact, the 2002 LA Times piece devotes coverage to the fact he hadn't published as much as some of his peers would have liked. I'll note, though, that it appears he's published in journals a good bit more in recent years. All in all, it seems he's attracted enough interest from reliable sources to have a short article on him and his work. I don't understand why having an article would be a problem, unless the subject himself objects to having an article here, which would be another story. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that's helpful. Do you think those articles are really about him (the human) or his work (his idea for off-label use of this drug)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: if the sources are about his idea, then one solution is to stop having a biography and instead WP:MOVE the page to something like Use of etanercept to treat neurological disorders. (The problem with this, though, is that I don't really see many WP:MEDRS-type sources. It's easy to document governmental things about his medical license or a few trivial personal facts, like where he went to medical school or that he moved his practice to Florida. I'm just not sure that we could put much in an article about the actual idea itself (rather than the legal problems he encountered after developing his idea). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subject is more the controversy he has created around the use of this medication. He is notable for the controversy IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the sources are about Tobinick the doctor, and I don't see how we can separate that from Tobinick the person. It appears Tobinick has coverage in reliable sources for promoting a concept. This is connected to his person, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is about his treatment not him, a WP:COATRACK situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tippy789 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added references to the Sun-Sentinel piece, two LA Times articles and a transcript from the Australian version of 60 Minutes. Sure - we don't have sources that say whether Tobinick likes spaghetti, plays golf or practices yoga, but we have plenty of independent coverage of him in the context of his work. If this were an author of history books, a physicist or an economics professor, that would be enough. I can't rationalize the thought that Tobinick's coverage needs to rise to a different standard. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think those articles are really about his work and not about him.Swimmingfan (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another brand new user who has editing nothing else. This is not a vote so no worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And when people receive coverage in reliable sources for their work, we shouldn't have articles about them? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Analogy: Take a hypothetical "breakthrough" invention that received some news coverage, including interviews with the inventor. Would we create an article about the invention, or would we create an article about the inventor? Yobol (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2014 (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.