Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Todd


 * 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. After all of the single purpose accounts and unregistered editors comments arguing both ways, the consensus based on wikipedia's notability guidelines among established editors is clear that the article does not meet the guidelines, in particular lacking significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Douglas Todd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)


 * Do Not Delete Todd is certainly deserving of recognition as a significant columnist and author in the Pacific Northwest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.141.162 (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that this Vancouver, BC IP's only edit is to this debate in addition to a vandalistic edit to the nominator's user page. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete I do not understand charges that Todd is biased. He is recognized around the world as a leading journalist of religion. He serves as a board member of the International Association of Religion Journalists, has twice won the Templeton Award for outstanding religion journalism, has several time won awards from the Religion Newswriters Association for outstanding journalism, and is read by a half million people each year. The complaint that he calls himself Doctor is unfounded. He earned a honorary doctorate degree in recognition of a lifetime's work. The person filing this complaint clearly has a beef with Mr. Todd, or, he has a beef with religion, failing to understand the difference between writing about religion as a journalist as Mr. Todd does, following the rules of journalism and maintaining objectivity, and being a religious journalist, who advocates for a particular religious point-of-view. Mr. Todd does not do this. --108.44.147.29 (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that this poster uses the same language (ie: "Mr. Todd") as the poster Stuart lyster below, who has already voted for a "do not delete".  Is this vote from Stuart lyster's sockpuppet account, and does that influence your decision on the intentions of the poster? 142.59.217.7 (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For heaven's sake. Would the complainer at IP address 142.59.217.7 either verify one of his/her allegations or quit vandalizing this page.  Now he has accused me of having sock-puppet accounts.  He/she has also accused me of putting this up as a fan-page.  He's accused me of being a family member of Todd's. He has also accused Mr. Todd of religious bigotry with no citation to prove it, other than his/her opinion. How many of these is this poster allowed?Stuart lyster (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stuart Lyster did not post the original comment. I did. As Mr. Lyster said, please verify your allegations before leveling charges. My name is Martin Davis. I am a Washington, DC, based journalist and free-lance writer who has followed Mr. Todd's career for many years. 108.44.147.29 (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally note that this is the only edit to Wikipedia by this Fredricksburg, VA IP. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 2 July 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)
 * Note that this is the only edit to Wikipedia by this Vancouver, BC IP. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 2 July 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)
 * Note that this is the only edit to Wikipedia by this Cold Lake, AB IP. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 2 July 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 problematic, 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) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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)
 * I thought what was at issue was whether or not the in-line citations passed the Wikipedia requirement of being both from a NPOV and verifiable? Now this lone-complainer wants to attack the messenger providing the citations.  Why not just let the citations speak for themselves?  To repeat: why not also provide verifiable cites to the libellous claims claims he is advancing as if everyone knows his views are true? Stuart lyster (talk) 22:46, 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 Todd.  Until that happens, yes the claim of this being simple and continued vandalization stands. Stuart lyster (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, he's called me a 'complainer' and a 'weasel' now.  This poster cannot speak about the subject matter without becoming emotionally involved.   There's some personal connection here, and I suggest we consider it when we look at the reason for the page's creation.  142.59.217.7 (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that Alberta IP 142.59.217.7 is a single purpose account dedicated to this article, its talk page, and this deletion discussion. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Let it go, anyone who's so into this Todd guy had issues to start with.  FWIW that's 6 to delete now according to the stats. When do we trash this thing?24.114.45.97 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete Douglas Todd is an multi-awarded journalist and author who is notable not only within Vancouver but also within the field of spirituality and ethics reporting in North America. His columns were previously syndicated in the Hamilton Spectator (Hamilton, ON late 90's, early 2000s) and I've followed his writings from time to time since. Accusations that the subject of the BLP is behind the bio didn't hold up. Now the orig poster is being accused of using sock puppet accounts without any supporting evidence. I believe the suggestion the subject's books are self published is false. Suggesting that sources such as VST, the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster or SFU are not independent and unworthy is unsupported by evidence. Most concerning is the comment, "The individual in question doesn't seem to have contributed anything, really to society" which reveals a level of animosity towards the BLP subject. Finally, let's be careful before suggesting BLPs should be deleted when google searches bring up pages of their own articles; I'd expect any publishing entity worth it's salt would produce pages of results for a writer with decades worth of print and online publishing.Cherms (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the only edit to Wikipedia by this account. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete As a faith page columnist for another Canadian newspaper, I can vouch for Douglas Todd's credentials and expertise in writing about a variety of topics related to faith, culture and society. Journalism and column writing is designed to provoke and prompt debate, discussion and, sometimes, disagreement. Trying to shut down someone's voice, or a page about them and them and their work, because of a disagreement over a point of view is not only antithetical to the practice of journalism, but also the workings of an open and free society. Through his writing, Doug Todd provides people in the lower mainland with seasoned and reasoned perspectives on topics of interest to the community, and beyond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.54.2 (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the only edit to Wikipedia by this Winnipeg IP. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of this person passing WP:JOURNALIST or receiving any significant independent coverage. Nice amount of meatpuppetry in this AfD though. Winner 42 Talk to me!  14:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Living journalists are notoriously hard to source out under WP's notability rules since other publications tend not to write about their competitors and anything appearing in their own publications is regarded as "self-sourcing." We really do need some set of metrics for inclusion of significant career journalists akin to those we use for academics, in my opinion. This bio is probably not going to get over the notability bar while he is a living person, barring the winning of a Pulitzer or some such. I'm not convinced that is a good thing. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Can someone not involved in this discussion filter through this page and list a summary of the "keep" vs "delete" points, so that we can come to a consensus 142.59.217.7 (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete There seems to be very little even non-notable references to this journalist apart from the Vancouver Sun and things he wrote for the Vancouver Sun. That we have so many "Do Not Delete" rather than the more typical "Keep" suggests to me a strong hint of the stale smell of socks.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete The Douglas Todd entry arguably includes too many irrelevant specifics, such as his childhood moves. But the page is certainly warranted: as an international journalist who has read Todd's work for two decades I can vouch that journalists in Canada in general, and journalists in the small field of religious and spiritual writers globally, are well aware of Todd. The National Newspaper Awards, in which he is a recipient, are Canada's highest honour. The Templeton Religion Reporter of the Year Award, which he twice won, is evidence of respect by his peers. One indication of his standing In his general and academic community is that he was chosen to moderate a Karen Armstrong forum in Vancouver i in 2014. His columns and blog in the Vancouver Sun have an erudite following, judging by comments on social media. He has proven willing to address with academic rigour topics that not politically correct (i.e., the impact on Vancouver of wealthy investors from mainland China, or the Sikh fundamentalism linked with the Air India bombings). The "Delete" proponents on this page fail to make their arguments on the basis of evidence and citations; if they had they would not have to resort to childish insults such as "the stale smell of socks;" and poor grammar "anyone who's (sic) so into this Todd guy .... "  Finally, as a financial donor, constant reader and very occasional editor on Wikipedia, I am disturbed by the tenor of this discussion, and especially by what amounts to anonymous personal attacks. Wikipedia's stellar reputation and quality must be maintained by resisting the trolls that plague social media, and insisting on rigour and good faith. Tulpaloose (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it hilarious that this 'international journalist' doesn't know basic grammar.  I normally wouldn't be the grammar police, but he's calling out another poster for grammar, and the very thing he's got issue with is infact grammatically correct. Who's is the conjunction of who is. 24.114.41.163 (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And that first colon you used should be a semicolon, Mr International Journalist who financially contributes to Wikipedia yet does not have a userpage on his brand new account. Get out the ban sticks for these socks already, this is just terrible 24.114.41.163 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Douglas Todd's blogs are written with similar grammatical errors. If you read that post by Tulpaloose carefully, you can see a few dead giveaways that it's Todd himself.  The general tone is the same as Todd - plodding, self-righteous grandiosity, using a few synonyms swapped out by MSWord's thesaurus, but most importantly full of problems with sentence structure.  It's an *arrogant* style of writing.  It tells you what you should think, but fails to respect the medium (language), leaving you feeling ripped off.   As though you were told you'd see MJ and the Bulls, but the Generals showed up.  Just a thought. 142.59.217.7 (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment : "if they had they would not have to resort to childish insults such as "the stale smell of socks;" and poor grammar "anyone who's (sic) so into this Todd guy .... " - on this note, I would like to mention that we have a strict policy of no personal attacks. Debate the suitability of the article by all means, but anyone else who makes disparaging remarks at other participants may well find themselves blocked from editing. Be cool, people. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. If the decision is to keep the article, can it be locked for a period of time to prevent the current (my opinion) vandalisation? Stuart lyster (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Try doing what this user asked you to on your talk page.  Go read the administrator notice board, where there's a discussion about this article.   It is unanimous that this article will be deleted   142.59.217.7 (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's delete it already then. No new ideas for days now, just bickering waiting for a decision 142.59.217.7 (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.