Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Todd

AfDs for this article:
Omar Todd (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)

References are weak. None show any notability as they are either from non

talk
) 05:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Addendum to nomination--Gnews search turned up nothing on this Omar Todd; same for Gbook, Gscholar and JSTOR.
talk) 04:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Recommending WP:SALT after deletion Agreed with
    WP:SALT
    after deletion from above post. It might stop the obsessive re-adding of an Omar Todd article under various labels: politician, tv star, producer, political leader, and so on and so forth.

By the way... I have added this elsewhere but it's too interesting not to add here. Has anyone bit the bullet and looked at Omar Todd's social media? Fascinatingly popular, that is until you do a little digging. Use one of the social statistic counters (Tweet Stats, Statistics Brain, Social Stackers) and have a look at how they graph his account. I did so here: http://twittercounter.com/OmarSeaShepherd You'll fast notice that as many as 100,000 followers suddenly appear on his accounts in very short bursts over just a few hours at a time. He loses the followers just as quickly as he gets them. This graph shows me that he was -3,405 followers yesterday alone. Then I used the tag on the right to adjust the graph to show the last 3 months. His graph looks like the damn mountain ranges! On Thursday April 18 2013 he lost 27,974 followers in a day; but on April 21 2013 he was back up by 13,552 followers. He's gone from 10,000 to 400,000 followers in five different (and giant) following periods. Twitter following doesn't work like that organically. It's a steady increase without major loss or something is up. This is a tell tale sign that Omar Todd is buying his Twitter followers (and amusingly, losing them just as fast). --PixiePerilot (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BE and [1].  Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC) — PixiePerilot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
czar · · 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
czar · · 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
czar · · 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The response from the incubator is that there is no standard process.  For this case I suggest deleting the current article and replacing it with
{{Portal|Article Incubator}}
The English Wikipedia does not currently have an article on this topic.
Unscintillating (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. #1 Digital Journal dated 9 January 2013, an in-depth article focused on the topic.
  2. #2 Huffington Post blog dated 16 January 2013, "Speaking of rabble-rousing, some might argue that focusing the public's attention on environmental issues can take a bit of shock value to pull off. Such is the case for Omar Todd, a film producer..."
Unscintillating (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Digital journal is of questionable value as it is sourced in good part back to Wikipedia; The HuffPost is a passing mention in a larger article. Neither is of any value for determining notability.
    talk) 22:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • (edit conflict) So what is your point, that it was a good idea to create a new account to remove evidence of notability and rewrite the lede?  Do you think this is a newbie that has appealed to two admins asking for a salt and saying, "I'm unable to administer this edit"?  Given that this article is going to be deleted one way or another, my puzzle is why anyone would do this.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I suggest you review the nutshell of WP:N, and review the definition of "passing mention", then save the information for a possible AfD when this article comes out of the incubator.  With DJ, I'd say that you are conflating two different issues; wp:notability, and wp:verifiability by way of WP:IRS.  WP:IRS states, "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."  Yes, DJ identifies deletionwikia.com for elements of the IT career, and the approach I've taken with the incubated article is that that detail is not needed in the article.  The fact that they've shown this source when they did does not suddenly make the article "sourced in good part to Wikipedia".  This article appears to be a good reference for identifying the role of the topic with Sea Shepherd, which is shown in this reference as a technical volunteer.  Various other sources identify this role as "technical director" and even "CIO", which is probably true to an extent, but Sea Shepherd themselves do not show that he is on staff.  So Digital Journal appears to be a good source for this point.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Claiming as you did in the nomination that none of the sources show notability is not a credible position, and the fact that you have not shown any independent Google research makes it also appear that you think that our notability guidelines are defined by sources in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Todd was also nominated for a shorty award. http://industry.shortyawards.com/nominee/5th_annual/99/omar-todd-sea-shepherd-technical-director

I am requesting a Keep vote from Unscintillating (talk). I also request that the delete votes from PixiePerilot and RangerDividens not count as they were made to vote in this, only, to date.Aussiepundit (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The farcical claim he is notable as an actor and director on Whale Wars has no basis in reality. The claim he is a director is new. It's not mentioned elsewhere, it's not in any credits I've seen. As an "actor", if claims he appears are true then it's only a minor part in two episodes as himself. Not acting. Not a significant part. Not enough for Animal Planet to supply a bio for him [5].
WP:NACTORS asks for significant parts in multiple productions. Todd doesn't even have one. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Lets change the word part to role. From
    WP:NACTORS, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Looking at the significance of Todds part or role or appearance is entirely relevent when looking at Aussiepundit's spurious claim that Todd is notable as an Actor. Whale Wars is also (supposedly) a documentery series that follows around real people, not actors playing roles. So Todd's "appearence" on the show does not make him an actor. The show does not give in-depth coverage of Todd so does not go to WP:GNG notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Interesting to note your below criticism about logical fallacy when looking at your request for evidence of absence. It actually should be the other way around. You claimed the episodes addresses the subject directly in detail (
    WP:GNG), you should be the one providing the evidence. But I'll bite. [6] has no mention of Todd. Whale Wars has no mention of Todd. On the Pirate to Prisoner episode he supposedly "acts" in: This episode recap makes no mention of Todd. This episode preview makes no mention of Todd. Blacklisted examiner /article/whale-wars-special-pete-bethune-pirate-to-prisoner and this announcements of what the episode is make no mention of Todd. this press release based piece which tells us the episode is a "special on Pete Bethune" and makes no mention of Todd. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • A lack of a bio for Bethune does not make Todd notable. The lack of a bio is an indicator of the amount on significance the Animal Planet thought Todds role had. Bethune is otherwise notable. Todd is not. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't provide evidence about the basis for Animal Planet to provide bios, so it appears that all you have is an absence of evidence argument, which is a logical fallacy.  See
    Absence of evidence.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - Nothing about deleting Omar Todd's article from Wikipedia is politically motivated and the fact that someone representing Omar Todd (AussiePundit) would come to Wikipedia and make this claim just goes to further prove that there are serious delusions of grandeur taking place. Todd is neither notable nor influential in politics and there is certainly no political agenda taking place at Wikipedia to have this profile removed and salted. If the subject were notable it would not be so difficult to find a source. Please note: The IMDb page for Omar Todd has captioned photos in first person, "X person and I," giving the impression that Omar Todd moderates that page. It's just not a credible source and this is becoming absolutely ridiculous.
    WP:SALT already. PixiePerilot (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BE and [7].  Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment  All editors who post at AfD receive the following notice:
multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users
rather than the article is also considered disruptive.
FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the above commentary from
    talk) 08:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - I disagree that User:ShatnersGuy makes an unrelated point and that the claim is unsubstantiated. Here is the tweet thread in which Shatner denies knowing Todd. I think examples like these go to show, in great detail, that claims made by Omar Todd or anyone presumably representing him are completely exaggerated and are done so to try and establish false notability. Although there were no claims about William Shatner made on the Omar Todd page itself, the claim made on his social media accounts bares a stark resemblance to claims made on the page that are also untrue upon investigation. For example, Omar Todd is not in the episodes listed on the IMDb page and editors above have gone to great trouble to prove that. User:duffbeerforme has disproved the claims that Omar Todd is a featured cast member on Whale Wars and there is no evidence to prove that he even had a minor role. Let me put it this way: should every person, friend of a friend, or person appearing in the background of a reality show be given a Wikipedia page? Does this make them notable? Any associations with Wikileaks are minor in terms of Wikipedia notability and as suggested twice above, his association to the party shoud be listed on the Wikileaks Wikipedia page at best. Volunteer roles with charitable organisations do not show an express need for a Wikipedia account unless they are a celebrity representative, spokesperson or otherwise notable affiliation; Todd is simply not this. Furthermore, it is a tad convenient that the accounts creating a page for Omar Todd are all new and have made no edits outside of creating the page for Todd and all new pages created for Todd make the same claims in almost the same manner, as though they have been copied and pasted. Furthermore, I'd like to add that there are no reliable sources used to reference any of the information on this article that would indicate notability: HuffPost was a blog, not a news item and briefly mentioned Todd; the Examiner is blacklisted by Wikipedia as a reliable source; Digital Journal is much the same in terms of reliability. What exactly are the sources being used here? Are we debating this guys existence or his notability? He's a person, yes, but a notable person he is not. LouisStefanian (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Amending my post to add that, the thread in which William Shatner denies knowing Todd is from Shatner's verified account, which therefore substantiates or further disproves another claim about Omar Todd. LouisStefanian (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BE and [11].  Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC) — LouisStefanian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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/Omar_Todd_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1138182103"