Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobin Armbrust

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 no consensus. AfD's are in essence a PROD discussion and after being relisted twice, there's a weak opposition to the article being deleted. Even being weak, it's the only !vote in the discussion that went either way. We're now at a no-consensus decision and relisting this discussion again doesn't look like it's going to garner any additional responses as we've gone two weeks without discussion. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tobin Armbrust[edit]

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

I can't find enough sources to justify general notability of this person. They DO meet some of the criteria for creative professionals, but I cannot find any sources other than the ones provided that provide significant coverage, and that are secondary sources.

As it stands, the references are:

One interview with the Hollywood Reporter (in depth secondary coverage)
One single entry in a list people mentioned in the The 20th Anniversary Gotham Independent Film Award
One profile of business people in Business Week (arguably secondary coverage but I'm not sure as it's part of a company profile, appears self-written)
One biography in a marketing website, which I consider to be a puff-piece (as a PR company is wont to write) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - While it does, as Panyd noted above, struggle mightily with WP:GNG, something seems off or weird to me that an established executive producer on numerous major motion pictures would somehow be unqualified for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. GauchoDude (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IMDB database lists some 200+ articles containing his name, but after lots of scrolling I couldn't find any about him. He is listed as producer on the films the articles are about, often as one of 3-5 producers. I don't see any blockbusters or academy awards in his history. If that's enough for notability, so be it, but other than a list of films there doesn't seem to be much to say about him. LaMona (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess it depends what your definition of "blockbuster" is, not that "blockbusters" are the end all, be all to the discussion. I would say him being a producer on 5 films that earned over $50 million box office, with one over $125 million would certainly qualify as blockbuster status to me. Again, inconsequential, but it just feels off that being influential on movies like those doesn't result in an article. GauchoDude (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It feels incredibly off. I felt very torn about the nomination, but I couldn't find a thing. I have a sneaking suspicion the man likes to keep a low profile. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 25 November 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.