Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Wider


 * 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 speedy close. Nothing good will come of letting this disaster of a deletion discussion continue. If anyone wishes to renominate this article who does not have a serious COI problem with the subject, can do so at any time. Mr.  Z- man  18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Todd Wider
"KEEP"  Notable and most worthy. . He both produced award winning  films  and literally changed legislation on breast cancer care. The only question to Wikepedia's validity are these kind of attacks to delete for no justification. This is important and worthy info on this guy--- period. attack something else like the war not film award winners, and this doctor that (my aunt benefited from this) changed legislation so women are eligible for insurance for breast cancer surgery. For that alone he is worthy. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GWBridge (talk • contribs) 14:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

DELETE Lack of notability and fails WP:BIO criteria for inclusion as either a physician or entertainment figure of note. Secondary sources, which can be used to support wikipedia inclusion, are "trivial" as described in biography guidelines. While you can find an internet "footprint" on google, it's just not very deep. Not being familiar with the subject, this clearly appears mostly a vanity entry that serves to add to the floatsum. Anyone disagree? Droliver 03:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletefor now, unless sources for the film fest awards can be found. As a surgeon, he gets one quote, reprinted ad nauseum in a number of newspapers because he happened to be working triage on 9/11.--Sethacus 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

KEEP I do not agree. There is ample supporting material on IMDB, on the tribeca film site, on the woodstock film site, on the vienna film festival site, on a myriad of other film sites, etc., etc. etc. for my work. In addition, the films were reviewed in multiple newspapers, variety magazine, etc. The last film won the tribeca film festival. Other films appeared on msnbc, pbs, etc. This is an attempt by Dr. Oliver, who is a pompous ass and whom is maquerading as an expert on plastic surgery, to interfere with this site. See comments on Breast Reconstruction for support of this. He refuses to acknowledge Janet Franquet, a patient of mine, who helped lobby for efforts to get federal legislation passed to force women with breast cancer to get insurance coverage for breast reconstruction. However, Dr. Oliver is now the world's authority on plastic surgery. Sorry, he is not. There are multiple references in the media to what I am doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmwmd (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the above comment is evidence that it is a vanity article. See Autobiography. The contributor also began the entry on the film Beyond Conviction in which he features. Anarchia 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of medicine-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 23:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

-KEEP--- TWO OF THE DIRECTORS HE WORKED WITH (GIBNEY AND SPURLOCK) WERE ACADEMY AWARD NOMINEES. HIS LAST DOCUMENTARY WON THE TRIBECA FILM FESTIVAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.196.234 (talk • contribs) September 15,2007

Comment Notability isn't inherited. I worked as an extra on a Brad Dourif movie. Does that make me notable? As for the TFF, source it.--Sethacus 01:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It seems clear from the article that the notability claimed is as a film producer, and the remainder is not relevant to notability. (.The ed. who wrote it and the one who nominated it seem to have equal and opposing COI. ) As three at least of the films seem to have won awards, I think that is enough for notabilityDGG (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

KEEP  From General Priniciples of Notability in WK, under film section: "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[3] The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[4]"

1. To date his films have won such awards as: Tribeca Film Festival, Woodstock Film Festival, Slamdance Film Festival, PASS Award from National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Asian American Film Festival, International Arizona Film Festival; including best documentary at several festivals:

http://www.tribecafilmfestival.org/tff-aj-2007-awards.html http://www.woodstockfilmfestival.com/press/releases/2006_awards-release.htm http://www.slamdance.com/press/press_release.asp?article_id=556 http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pdf/pass_winners_2007 http://www.asianamericanfilmfestival.org/public_documents/2007_wrap_release.pdf

2. To date, his films have been reviewed in multiple, national publications including, Washington Post, Variety, NY Times, Emanuel Levy, etc.:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117933528.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042601569.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6623791.stm http://www.emanuellevy.com/article.php?articleID=2741 http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/357760/Beyond-Conviction/overview http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117931082.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0

3. To date, his films have been screened at numerous film festivals including: Tribeca Film Festival, Silverdocs, Woodstock Film Festival, LA Film Festival, Leeds Film Festival, Vienna Film Festival, Slamdance Film Festival, Asian American Film Festival, IFP Independent Independents at Lincoln center, Arizona Film Festival, etc

He clearly makes it on several of the inclusion criteria listed above. Of interest, the one who nominated this article for deletion, this "Droliver", has links to a blog that he advertises his services on-conflict of interest on his part Droliver 20:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the quote above,"notability isn't inherited" captures this debate well. If you look at the wikipedia biography guidelines for notability as I understand it, just because you have yourself attached for something like production credits to film projects doesn't make you (as a producer) notable unless there are other secondary sources focusing on the producer as an individual. As far as I could tell from google searches, there just is no internet footprint for Dr. Wider in that context. I have no issues with subject personally as is implied, I've been pretty consistant on trying to limit the bloat of entries on individuals in my field. As a physician, it's clear Dr. Wider wouldn't (yet) meet inclusion criteria. As a producer, I'd argue it merits more examination, but still fails. BTW The IP of that last anon. comment sure looks like a sock puppet if you follow the paper trail.

Response: You clearly have some issue with me personally. I am not sure what it is, but frankly you have no experience in film and opining on it is ludicrous. I have produced those movies-not attached as some extra or peripheral person. Producing a film involves an intimate relationship with a major part of the film's creation. I object to this all seeing approach you have taken to this service and argue that you are depriving possible readers from learning about a number of valuable and informative documentaries that I have produced that are highly socially relevant and have achieved acclaim. Because they might not be playing at this moment in a theater in Birmingham, does not mean they are unimportant or not notable. Signed tmwmd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmwmd (talk • contribs) 22:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

4. KEEP THIS ENTRY: Every thing contained in this entry is NOTABLE and this is clearly a personal attack by Robert Oliver, MD, who is falsely accusing other physicians in his specialty without having any evidence to back up his baseless claims. If Wikipedia gives credence to false accusations like this one, it would be a travesty. Oliver, a plastic surgeon from Birmingham, Alabama has attacked other plastic surgeons in this manner, making false claims repeatedly. Wider, who helped firefighters during 9/11, who assisted multitudes of breast cancer patients is being attacked baselessly. Oliver should worry about his own practice, rather than comb the web looking for others to release his hostility on. Wikipedia needs to drop this senseless practice of allowing others to personally attack upstanding citizens who are making real contributions, like Wider.-((User talk: RenegadeLemonade50))


 * Several issues are being conflated here:
 * There seems to be some personal enmity between Oliver and Tony. This is irrelevant to the issue of Tony Wider's page.
 * The support for Tony Wider's page seems to come from Tony himself, an IP address that has a fair chance of being a Tony Wider sockpuppet, and a new Wikipedian User name. Such support is not particularly helpful.
 * Tony Wider started the Tony Wider page, and although WP:Autobiography is not forbidden, this makes the article on him suspect, and is highly likely to mean that the article violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. If the final decision is to keep the page, I think that Tony needs to make a commitment not to edit the page, or use a sockpuppet to do so.
 * Is there a Wikiproject:film group, or some guide in wikiproject:biogrpahy that says when a film producer counts as notable? If so, this should be used o estabnlish whether or not the article should be kept.
 * If the article is kept and if there is someone in a wikiproject film group or someone in Wikiproject biography with the necessray skills, perhaps someomne could go over the existing page and remove anything that violates OR and NPOV.
 * Suggestion: perhaps it would be better for Tony, Tony's friends, and Oliver to leave this issue for other people to discuss now.
 * I hope this helps. Tony, try to calm down about this. If you are notable and your article is deleted, you will undoubtedly find that someone else will start an article about you, one which could not be accused of being a vanity article.
 * P.S. Tony and Renegade you sign wikipedia articles by typing ~ Anarchia 01:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm asking an uninvolved party to close this discussion as a possible bad faith nom. That does not mean any side has "won", because I will relist it as, to my mind, this does not pass notability. Let me make this crystal clear and, hopefully, answer some of Anarchia's questions. First, notability is not inherited. Just because someone has produced an award-winning film, 3 award-winning films, hell, 500 award-winning films doesn't mae the producer notable,especially if said awards went, by all indications, to the director. The producer has to have some press of his own, interviews for example, somewhat apart from the film. If I produce a film that wins awards for, say, Julianna Rose Mauriello, for example, it doesn't make me notable, unless multiple non-trivial sources are found to establish notability.

I looked at the IMDb for Beyond Conviction as well as its website and the film festival's page, as well as the sources cited in te article. NONE of them mention Todd Wider as the winner of the award that the film received. The director, Rachel, gets credit.

The support for this article,as Anarchia says, comes from the doctor himself as well as numerous SPAs with few edits outside this article. This is a no-no. This is NOT a vote! It is a discussion. To the new user who stated that Dr. Wider "changed legislation so women are eligible for insurance for breast cancer surgery", prove it.

I would also challenge Dr. Wider concept of notabiility as a producer. Where is the article for your brother, Jedd? Anyone else see a redlink? By your definition, he should have an article as well. Are you more notable than him?--Sethacus 17:43, 16 September 2007 (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.