Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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

edit
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 WP:RS sources, or passing mention. does not pass either WP:ACTOR or WP:POLITICIAN. per a statement on article talk page, there have been prior deletions of the same subject. Would suggest WP:SALT after deletion. Gtwfan52 (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. Gtwfan52 (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 list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 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. Gtwfan52 (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]
  • Keep - Subject is notable as a founding member of Wikileaks Party, and also as a producer/director/actor, particularly with Whale Wars. Subject is a key part of Whale Wars and was nominated for a Shorty. Multiple RS on subject including The Age, Digital Journal, HuffPo, Current, CNN. Not all sources are in references. Keep. Aussiepundit (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC) — Aussiepundit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Todd lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. The Digital Journal is not a reliable source. The Huffington Post piece is a blog with only a passing mention of him.
  • Article says he has appeared on “Whale Wars". Whale Wars has no mention of him. IMDb does not list him. The three sources used in this version are a blog (not a reliable source) and two sea shepard pages (not independent and make no mention of Todd being in Whale Wars). The Incubator version also makes that claim. It's sourceing is that same blog and an article about Whale Wars that makes no mention of Todd. As created the Incubator version [2] had another source to support the claim. A blog that states "Such is the case for Omar Todd, a film producer who's also the CIO of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, featured in the award-winning Animal Planet show Whale Wars, in which seafaring conservation activists risk life and limb in the name of saving the whales." This says that Sea Shepard featured and carefully avoids saying Todd did, trying to give the impression he did.
  • The productions he is invovled with are not notable productions so do not satisfy WP:FILMMAKER.
  • He has only passing coverage about his part in the Wikileaks Party so at best that should be mentioned in that article.
  • Article has been repeatedly repoasted by multiple new accounts in various promotional and deceptive forms. Acting in a bad faith manner to try to use Wikipedia to promote this individual.
  • Someone is playing loose with the truth and trying to use Wikipedia to promote Todd. Deceptive promotional BLPs have no place on Wikipedia. If in doubt ignore all rules to stop the rot. Stop Wikipedia from being overtaken by vanity spam to help preserve its integrity. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only user here (so far) upvoting for 'keep' is AussiePundit himself, the user who created the page for Omar Todd. The user is quite possibly Omar Todd himself. There is no mention of Omar Todd in The Age, Current, or CNN despite claims above from the user AussiePundit. Subject is supposedly a key part of Whale Wars and yet there are no reliable sources to verify that he is a featured or recurring cast member on Whale Wars which would be the only capacity in which he could be considered notable as a tv personality/actor. Fleeting mentions in blog posts and other media do not count and do not represent a need for a Wikipedia account. This is absolutely vanity spam. WP:SALT this article. RangerDividens (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BE and [3].  Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC) — RangerDividens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • There are no search results for Omar Todd on The Age or Current. HuffPo mention is from a submitted blog, is fleeting and unsourced. Todd may have conducted the interview with the blogger himself and provided false information as it cannot be cited anywhere. One result for Omar Todd on CNN iReport, a user-generated feature for CNN where users can sign up and submit their own news posts. The one result for Todd was submitted by Todd himself from his user account. Not notable. Omar Todd is not a celebrity. RangerDividens (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BE and [4].  Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 6 July 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:ACTOR WP:NACTORS asks for significant parts in multiple productions. Todd doesn't even have one. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling the appearance a "part" is not consistent with asserting that the topic is not an actor...whatever is contained in the appearance is, under our WP:GNG guideline, in-depth coverage of the RL of the topic and goes to WP:GNG notability.  Animal Planet is available to 93 million cable subscribers in the United States, and 70 countries around the world.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:56, 30 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]
  • You say, "The show does not give in-depth coverage of Todd".  That would be useful if you could provide evidence to that effect for each of the two episodes.  Do you have such evidence?  Unscintillating (talk) 10:55, 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]
  • There is no logical fallacy, you are just reading more into my statement than is actually there. Proponents of Todd's notability need to provide evidence of such. Unless evidence can be shown he is notable the reverse position should be taken. The lack of bio is just another of multiple points where such evidence could reasonably guessed might exist but does not. WP:BEFORE asks us to check for information. Showing that lack helps show that a check has been made.
  • If Todd is the flea in the quad then he is not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Age and Borderchronicle are the exact same article, and only have a couple lines about Todd in a much larger article about another subject. They do not speak to notability. IMdB is considered a non-WP:RS for vetting notability. The Shorty award has two problems that make it not a proper source for notability. Being nominated for an award does not show notability. Winning it does. Secondly, it is a self-nomination, and hence primary. No notability there. As far as CNNi goes, whether it was written by Omar Todd or Sweeney Todd, it is still an unvetted blog and hence not WP:RS. WP:RS speaks directly about blogs on otherwise reliable newssites like CNN. Gtwfan52 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Note that this has already been deleted a couple of times, including the first AFD which I was the nominator. I don't see much changed since then. Salting may be needed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It doesn't matter if I have made 100 edits or 1 edit, it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not Omar Todd is notable or whether or not I may express an opinion on this matter. Todd is not a director for Whale Wars. He may have had some involvement in founding the Wikileaks Party but as stated above by another user, that should be mentioned on the party's page at best. IMDb is not proving a credible source in relation to Todd's supposed starring on Whale Wars as I cannot find any other verification and he is not listed as a crew member on any of Sea Shepherd's campaign pages in which the crews featured on the show are profiled. Shorty Award nominations do not make a subject credible as they are self-submitted and anyone can apply. PixiePerilot (talk) 04:45, 26 June 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]
  • Delete - The only sources detailing Omar Todd are the Examiner and Digital Journal, both are non WP:RS as far as I know. HuffPo is not a vetted news item and Todd's mention is in passing in a submitted blog. HuffPo also offers no source to verify the claims made. IMDb is the only source validating an appearance on Whale Wars. Todd may have appeared but it seems his appearance was brief as I cannot find any information outside of IMDb and uploaded videos to YouTube do not obviously feature him in the episodes posted. There are two results for 'Omar Todd - Wikileaks', one being a brief mention on the independent party page and the second being an opinion he offered in a newspaper article about a larger topic. These things prove Omar Todd does exist but do not validate a need for a Wikipedia account. Not in the slightest. MattGunvalsson (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BE and [8].  Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC) — MattGunvalsson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - I vote to delete. The reason I am here because I was alerted to this situation by one of the Wikipedia members after Mr. Todd posted claims that he was doing my job on another site. (LinkedIn) I am William Shatner's Social Media Manager and Mr. Shatner was alerted to a claim made by Mr. Omar Todd on LinkedIn. Mr. Todd claimed that he assisted Mr. Shatner with Mr. Shatner's Social Media and helped him with his presence and with his charities, insinuating that he was Mr. Shatner's Social Media Manager. Mr. Shatner indicated to the person that alerted him that he did not know Mr. Todd and referred to me as his social media manager. Upon receiving the notification of the response by Mr. Shatner I did go and check out LinkedIn and discovered that Mr. Todd had made claims to that effect. Later in the day Mr. Todd apparently saw that his LinkedIn claims were being debated and went and removed Mr. Shatner's name. By this morning the verbiage had been changed again. Mr. Todd also attempted to contact me via LinkedIn mail and on Twitter asking to discuss the matter privately. Since the resume was a public document I chose to confront Mr. Todd publicly and get to the bottom of the situation on Twitter. What I found after a lengthy back and forth was that Mr. Todd had encountered Mr. Shatner at a Star Trek convention in London in October 2012. Mr. Todd engaged Mr. Shatner in a short conversation stating he was associated with the Sea Shepherd Organization. Mr. Shatner knew of the organization. Mr. Todd then claims that the conversation then turned to the matter of promoting Mr. Shatner on Social Media and according to Mr. Todd; Mr. Shatner agreed. In speaking today with Mr. Shatner I did find that Mr. Shatner did indeed know the founder of the Sea Shepherd organization many years ago. Mr. Shatner also acknowledged that he was approached by a fan while signing a photo at the convention who was from that organization. Mr. Shatner had no recollection of any offer to do social media promotion nor would he have accepted it. He would have referred the person to myself. That is exactly what has happened in the past; anyone who wants to do something with Mr. Shatner online is referred to me before any kind of commitment is made. I deal with everyone from Priceline, major studios to the March of Dimes in Canada when they want Mr. Shatner to do some social media. It is unlikely that Mr. Shatner would veer from that course for this organization. In doing searches online for Omar Todd and William Shatner I came across many references from Mr. Todd that align him with Mr. Shatner including an about.me page that also has the same quote from LinkedIn: "Celebrities – I’ve helped William Shatner, Richard Dean Anderson, Michelle Rodriguez, Daniel Baldwin, Eric Balfour and many others with social media for their personal presence and raise awareness for their charities." During my long Twitter argument today with Mr. Todd, he acknowledged he was creating positive posts by going on to Google plus and trying to cajole Mr. Shatner to join the cause. When I replied that all the posts he made about Mr. Shatner were basically about Mr. Shatner supporting his organization his reply to me was "please explain to me how a "positive" post like that doesn't do anyone any good? Look most would be pleased at that." So the fact that while he was creating positive posts to Mr. Shatner to join and follow his social media accounts online and supporting his organization that was his way of helping with Mr. Shatner's personal presence and raising awareness for his charity (which was the Sea Shepherd Organization which is not even on Mr. Shatner's list of supported charities that he fundraises for every year on www.horseshow.org/site/index.php/charities.html. It appears to be about Mr. Todd aligning himself with Mr. Shatner. Mr. Todd clearly misrepresented everything regarding Mr. Shatner. He has been blocked as far as I know from contacting Mr. Shatner. For proof of some of what I said you can go to: http://imgur.com/a/cKwL3. Please forgive any formatting issues. I'm not as much of an expert here nor do I have a page here. Please feel free to correct my format. Thank you.--ShatnersGuy (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)— ShatnersGuy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment  All editors who post at AfD receive the following notice:
Administrator instructions
FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the above commentary from User:ShatnersGuy is intersting, I guess, it has absolutely no bearing on this discussion as it is just unsubstantiated claims from an editor whose only edit was his posting here. I find that rather suspect. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the article or any policy which it may or may not be deleted for. Gtwfan52 (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"