Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Todd

Douglas Todd

Douglas 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)

Not an obviously notable journalist, who writes a column in the Vancouver Sun ... and that's it. I trimmed out some puffery, but a search for a sources brought up nothing except his own columns and self-published material. That's just not good enough for a BLP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree 142.59.217.7 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with all the statements listed so far. A quick search for sources only came up with this: Interview with Douglas Todd, which is low-quality anyways. He seems to be just an average journalist as far as I can tell. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Do not delete I am the original creator of this page. Douglas Todd is a notable journalist in the Vancouver and Canadian journalistic scenes and is at least a notable as many existing Wikipedia entries of BLP. Is Wikipedia going to trim them too? It is my view that the original complaint about his "notoriety" is ironic, in that such a complaint with accompanying subject matter is precisely because of his footprint in journalism. No, he is no Anderson Cooper from CNN, and his beat is a niche of the market. However his impact includes recognition by the Templeton Foundation which issues awards for journalism, two of which he possesses. I'd suggest that he is in fact notable, and that the originator of a complaint himself does not come from a NPOV background. Stuart lyster (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I am just coming up to speed with what the issues are here. But for heaven's sake, how can a page which has been up for eight years, suddenly come up for scrutiny for not being notable enough for BLP? Seriously? Stuart lyster (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Page flew under the radar. Page seems to have been created by DT himself or family member. Middle name is given, and terms of losing employment are not found in any search. Agree that deletion should have occurred 8 years ago, but better late than never 24.114.37.10 (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? I am not a family member of DT's. I was a reader of his column who wondered why, 8 years ago, a notable, accomplished author like him was NOT on Wikipedia. Since then he's received an honourary doctorate because of his work. He has authored a well received book on Cascadia", makes sales on Amazon.... and what the criticism is is that all this "seems" to be his own self-promotion. What more do you want? I would appeal to Wikipedia senior editors to see this for what it is - people trying to invent non-notoriety, because they do not agree with what he has written. Indeed, that proves his notoriety. Stuart lyster (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Flew under the radar? This page had once to be locked by Wiki editors because of vandalisation - and one can say seriously that this has flown under the radar? I'd suggest that this is as it always been with this page: some people have just found new ways to vandalise it - now, trying to claim that, for instance, "Douglas Todd is not significant even in Vancouver." That is just nonsense, yet it was the first "talk" posting which started this. Todd has also been vandalised by people who did not like his coverage of Christopher Hitchens. None of the so-called allegations of violations of BLP is remotely true - I would once again ask senior Wiki-people to step up. Stuart lyster (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

70.70.249.154 (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete The blog that Douglas Todd writes for is on the Opinion Pages of the Vancouver Sun. Not a notable author, and no notable achievements. 24.114.37.10 (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete for reasons given by those above, thumbs up to deleting this bio 24.142.28.129 (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure where all these IPs have come from, but my reason for proposing to delete the article is that I can't improve it and can't see how anyone else can. The specific problem is that a biography of a living person must have inline citations to high-quality and independent sources. Without that, we really have no way of knowing exactly how notable Douglas Todd is or isn't, and for BLPs we have to err on the side of not including. As it stands, the article doesn't seem to have any inline citations and all, very little in the way of sources, and a search for sources showed me nothing outside his columns for the Vancouver Sun. The presence of any other articles is irrelevant for deciding what to do with this one. I'm not trying to be mean or belittle your efforts, but there have been so many problems with complaints and even lawsuits by subjects of a BLP that we have to be conservative these days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so that we're on the same page, then, would the following inline reference count? [JUDY GRAVES AND DOUGLAS TODD TO BE AWARDED 2013 HONORARY DOCTORATES BY VST http://vancouver.anglican.ca/news/judy-graves-and-douglas-todd-to-be-awarded-2013-honorary-doctorates-by-vst] I could probably do that for each sentence, and don't want this to become an argument about what is and what isn't a legitimate reliable source Stuart lyster (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is an acceptable source, and if you can get about 6-7 truly independent sources citing all the unsourced facts in the article, I think we can rescue this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've inserted 7 sources, some doing double duty. Please identify any remaining in-line sources which you think is needed. Stuart lyster (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, a church based newspaper is not independent, as the bias is towards members. Any recognition given thereof is also biased, and not reflective of notability. This constitutes the majority of the "citations", and "achievements". The truth is, being a Christian blogger doesn't make one notable in and of itself. It's impossible to clean up this article, as Douglas Todd has done nothing noteworthy in his field. He has made no contribution which shifted the dynamics of thinking in religion (if that's his supposed field). This article needs to be deleted, I'm sorry 142.59.217.7 (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with the dismissal of the Diocese of New Westminster as a "church based newspaper", it's a bit bigger than that, and it does suggest that somebody independently decided to write about Douglas Todd off their own back, so it can be used. The Simon Fraser University news source is another good one. The Amazon links are useful, just about anyone can put anything on Amazon indiscrimanately, so it's not really much use. As it stands, we could possibly close with a redirect to Vancouver Sun, but that's about as far as I'd go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If someone supposes himself to be an academic, he should be published in academic journals. Doctors, teachers, policemen, and politicians all have reviews in their local chapter's monthly circulations, and yet they do not deserve a page on Wikipedia until and unless they have done something significant (good or bad) which affected their field. In the case of academia, this is published in peer-reviewed journals. The individual in question doesn't seem to have contributed anything, really to society. The link at Simon Fraser University shows another attempt by him to belittle minorities. It is not hard to have something put on Amazon, it is not hard to set up a blog, it is not hard to sign up as a guest presenter to fill the required credit hours for a theology course at SFU, etc etc. Show me something, anything significant which he has done, which contributes to his field in a meaningful way. 142.59.217.7 (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In my view the complainer at IP 142.59.217.7 is showing that he does not have a NPOV in relation to this. Take this comment, "The individual in question doesn't seem to have contributed anything, really to society." Yet Mr. Todd is not an employee of the church or any religious organization - the societal breadth he has is precisely because he is in the employ of The Vancouver Sun, a secular newspaper with a century-long presence in Vancouver and Canada. As a journalist, Mr. Todd has a weekly review printed in that paper, with opportunity for all to review it - and Mr. Todd has done that since the 1980s. Then there's the bait and switch from the complainer at IP 142.59.217.7. This betrays two things - one, he advances a non-verified, non-NPOV claim that few, if any, share. It is unsourced and can be nothing more than a personal opinion which is driving his vandalization, in my opinion. His complaint about the source moves his complain against Mr. Todd to SFU itself. SFU is also a secular - ie. non-church - authoritative source of Mr. Todd's contributions but IP 142.59.217.7 sees that (on other grounds, ones that prop up Todd's notoriety) as reason to delete Todd's article. Why then is he not arguing to delete reference to SFU on those grounds? Mr. Todd's page, as seen from the Talk-page, has gone through a number of vandalizations like this, and in times past Wiki-editors have intervened appropriately. This vandalization is simply more sophisticated. The former vandals would simply try to edit the article with their non-NPOV, unverifiable opinions. This vandal is arguing strawmen behind the scenes. Stuart lyster (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

We're going to have to make a decision on whether the above poster is too personally attached to the subject matter to be able to maintain a neutral point of view on the subject. 142.59.217.7 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I've given it a few days for all the information to surface, but have decided to vote for this article's deletion. The reasons are threefold:
  • Fails notability test, in that independent sources do not present any significant body of work which contributes or detracts from Douglas Todd's pursuant field of interest (religion?)
  • Creation of the page, and maintenance of, continues in large part by the actions of a single user only. This user also does not feel the page should be scrutinized, and has called due diligence vandalization, suggesting a personal conflict of interest.
  • Is unencylopedic in that the page lacks a balanced view of the person in question. Fanpages can be created on independent websites, Facebook, or Twitter. Wikipedia is not the place for a fan page. 142.59.217.7 (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the continued use of weasel terms like "fanpage" I can only repeat that this person, a single-voice calling Mr. Todd in essence a Christian-bigot betrays his lack of NPOV. Indeed, non-church sources are now in the article in question, which simply provide third-party citations to the material. I also do feel the page should be scrutinized, as it has been in the eight years of its existnce, just not vandalized by someone with an obvious bone to pick with the person in question. This person is not bringing due-diligence, but an unverifiable opinion about Mr. Todd. He should provide verifiable sources, from a NPOV to his claims about Tidd. Until that happens, yes the claim of this being simple and continued vandalization stands. Stuart lyster (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)