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 delete. Ironholds (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas M Fleischmann[edit]

Tomas M Fleischmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Self-published/paid-to-publish author of questionable notability. Book published through AKA Publishing, a pay-to-publish outfit (see [1] and [2]. Google search on "Tomas Fleischmann" "Lolli's Apple" shows little significant coverage - one or two reviews, and a lot of social media sites and sales links. Award does not appear notable - 346 awards were given in one year. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as does not fulfill WP:AUTHOR (a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.) or general notability guidelines. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tomas M Fleischmann is 1 of only 123 survivors out of 16,000 children who went through Terezin Concentration Camp during WWII. Tomas' story is true and even more amazing as his book Lolli's Apple is told as an innocent 6 year old boy. I find his story more than notable however if anything requires editing, I am happy to consider any suggestions.

Please see category C for consideration: C. Be aware that some pages should be improved rather than deleted

Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette and "do not bite the newbies". Droopyjaz (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)— Droopyjaz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Response to accusation of incivility and "biting newbies" (As message above was left on my talkpage and on this AFD, I will leave the same response in both places)

I have reviewed my statement in favour of deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas M Fleischmann and do not find it to have broken any guidelines or protocol. I stated the facts neutrally as I saw them: that according to Wikipedia's guidelines (as quoted exactly and linked to in my statement) the article is a valid candidate for deletion. I did so without reference to any editor, without stating or inferring any prejudice towards the article's creator and without any assumptions of bad faith. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Who is this fellow deleting this Holocaust survivors profile? He is the keynote speaker of Courage to Care who have reached 250,000 school children in Australia promoting multiculturalism, anti-bullying and tolerance. He is NOT paid for this work as they are a MAJOR project of B'nai B'rith. He is also a regular speaker for free at the Jewish Museum of Sydney. He is also a leading member of the Holocaust Child Survivor Group in Australia...with Eva Engels and Litzi Lemberg. Tomas Fleischmann's page needs to be on Wikipedia for our community and for the future of our children. Let's edit it, get the facts right and keep it there for the community. What on earth is going on when profiles like this one are suggested for deletion? Unfortunately there were only 120 odd child survivors from 16,000 children in Terezin. Most of them are not even alive today to share their testimony and here is a fellow doing so perpetually. Leave it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharon001 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Sharon001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Response to accusation of Lolli's Apple being self-published" Tomas Fleischmann is not a self-published author. This can be verified through AKA Publishing who publishes both self-published and other notable works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.167.107 (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — 59.167.167.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete Neither the man nor his book appear meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability - no matter how interesting a life he may have had, or how many school children he talks to. The book has been in print for more than a year but does not appear to have garnered any reviews or other significant coverage. Fleischmann himself, based on the media record, appears to be much less notable than a hockey player of the same name. The publisher appears to do a mix of regular and vanity publishing, so this might or might not be self-published. But in any case, the lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources means that this article can't be kept. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Response to notability", The existence of another person of the same name should not negate the other. Someone by the name of Elizabeth Windsor may write the most successful chain of stories ever told, she may be star of the latest movie blockbuster, she may be a victim of a notable crime but may not feature top of the pop online because the Queen of England has the same name. Are not BOTH notable? Honestly notability is survival against the odds, written work/s that are published not by self, third party quotations made independently, public appearances, public awareness of profile (such as being one of the most recognised Jewish personalities in Sydney or Australia). These are notable. But you would rather leave it to a hockey star that no one in Sydney or Australia has ever heard of? What a shame we share Wikipedia with American/Canadian English speaking countries. I say let's have an edition for the rest of the English speaking world and lose the domination that proliferates. We have NEVER heard of Tomas Fleischmann the apparent hockey player until now. He has been around forever. His team promoters make sure he's in every Google article...but although you say Wikipedia must not use self promotion tools you refer to the number of Google entries and search engine optimisation as a source of credibility for notability. I am sorry but your methods are inherently flawed. Simply check the quotes, check with the publishers about the self published aspect if needs be but get your facts straight. Before you wipe a Holocaust survivors profile off the face of Wikipedia you ought to check if your facts are straight and correct and spend a little more than a couple of minutes Googling. It's sooo hard getting items up for the first time. The system is so user unfriendly and here we have someone trying to get up some humanitarian information and you want to wipe the story off the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharon001 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hockey player is not important; there are many examples in Wikipedia of articles about different people who have the same name. My point was that the Tomas Fleischmann we are discussing here does NOT seem to get any coverage - even less than a not-very-notable hockey player. And no matter how fine a human being Mr. Fleischmann may be, this is an international encyclopedia. There are clearly defined standards for inclusion here: basically that the person has gotten significant coverage by reliable, independent third parties (such as newspapers and books) Having published a book and giving talks are not enough, unless we can find independent third parties giving coverage to his book, or his talks. I can tell you feel strongly about this, and we are not trying to diminish the person's worth; we are just saying this is not the place to talk about him. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Response to notability", Hey I just read an article...a long article written by a Sister in the Catholic Church about this guy. Surely she is 'reliable'? She is certainly independent and certainly the article was long enough.hmmm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharon001 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have such a reference, I suggest that you add it to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is already listed, a long with a few other references. Droopyjaz (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2011 (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.