Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (2nd nomination)

AfD closed as speedy delete, related links

 * Related deletion logs
 * Special:Log&page=Omar Todd
 * Special:Log&page=Omar Todd (actor)
 * Special:Log&page=Omar Todd (filmmaker)
 * Special:Log&page=Omar Todd (politician)
 * Special:Log&page=Omar Todd (producer) (salted)
 * Special:Log&page=Omar Todd (Producer)
 * speedydeletion.wikia article
 * http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Omar_Todd, diff dated 14:53, September 17, 2012‎
 * List of references from the Google cache of the speedily-deleted article:
 * 1) ^ a b Moran, Andrew. "Meet Omar Todd: An Australian IT specialist turned film producer". Digital Journal, Jan. 9, 2013. Retrieved Jan. 20, 2013.
 * 2) ^ a b c Lynch, Amy. "10 Stars Doing Interesting Things To Change The World". Huffington Post. Retrieved Jan. 16, 2013.
 * 3) ^ "Nonprofits Learn to Use Social Media to Their Advantage". Technorati. Retrieved 22 May 2013.
 * 4) ^ a b "5th Annual Shorty Awards". Shorty Awards. Retrieved 20 January 2013.
 * 5) ^ a b "About TDiW". This Day in WikiLeaks. Retrieved 26 February 2013. "WikiLeaks Party". WikiLeaks Party. Retrieved 22 May 2013.
 * 6) ^ Dziez, Josh. "Sea Shepherd’s Anti-Whaling Campaign". Newsweek, Oct 8, 2012. Retrieved Jan. 20, 2013.
 * 7) ^ Credits (2010). "Waiting for Gorgo". Retrieved Jan. 20, 2013.
 * 8) ^ Credits (2010). "Confessions of an Eco-Terrorist". Retrieved Jan. 20, 2013.
 * 9) ^ "2012 Cinema Verde Environmental Film and Arts Festival". Retrieved Jan. 20, 2013.
 * 10) ^ Gay Alcorn: "Gambit or gamble?" in The Age, May 26, 2013
 * 11) ^ "Gambit or Gamble?". Border Chronicle. Retrieved 26 May 2013.


 * Note, line 5 with "" is in the original. I believe that this was intended to be two references, where the text "><ref" is missing after "</ref".


 * Pagelinks to AfDs, including this one:
 * , closed 2012-09-24T19:04:07.
 * , closed 2013-06-05T06:23:38.
 * Unscintillating (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Unscintillating (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Pagelinks to DRVs:
 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of "Article is not fundamentally different to the article that was deleted in September."
The closing of this AfD reads, "The result was speedy delete. Article is not fundamentally different to the article that was deleted in September." The September Afd closed 24 September 2012. The following is the list of references found in the Google cache, as posted above.
 * #1 Digital Journal dated 9 January 2013, an in-depth article focused on the topic.
 * #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..."
 * #3 Technorati, Author: Lana Bandoim, Published: 24 January 2013 at 5:36 am, "Omar Todd has built a following of 2 million people for the nonprofit organization that has a mission of helping marine life and has anti-whaling goals."
 * #4 Shorty, dated 15 October 2012, self-published.
 * #5a not directly about the topic
 * #5b identifies the topic's role in the organization, the limited material about the topic may be autobiography
 * #6 Newsweek and The Daily Beast, dated 8 October 2012, not directly about the topic
 * #7 cinemagine.com/screen/waitingforgorgo "Executive Producer, Omar Todd"
 * #8 imdb, Confessions of an Eco-Terrorist "Omar Todd	 .... 	consulting producer"
 * #9 is a dead link and should be . This reference is not directly about the topic. The reference refers to a festival dated 24 February 2012 – 2 March 2012.
 * #10 The Age, "Omar Todd, the technical director for anti-whaling activist group Sea Shepherd, considers himself an entrepreneur and was a Liberal Party member in his youth."
 * #11 same article as #10 but by another publisher. The article also appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 May 2013.

In testing the hypothesis that this material is "not fundamentally different to the article that was deleted in September", the hypothesis is not confirmed. Every reference that relates to notability is dated after 27 September 2012. The first reference is a major new addition to wp:notability. The material about a new political party in Australia is less than a month old. Unscintillating (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the first source is significant, but I do not think one consequential new source trumps the consensus of the last discussion. I'm not interested in creating controversy and will reinstate the AfD if people feel its necessary, but I don't think it is. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 17:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you for responding to the comments here. Unscintillating (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are we suddenly talking about "the consensus of the last discussion"? The hypothesis under discussion comes from the closing of the AfD.  The closing says that the article "is not fundamentally different to the article that was deleted in September", and I've already spent hours in analyzing that hypothesis.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with reopening this AfD. The nomination argument was "May fail WP:GNG".  This is not an argument for deletion, so the nomination fails WP:SK.  The nomination makes no pretense to having done Google research as per WP:BEFORE to prepare the topic for community discussion.  There is a simple way to look at this, if there is no one willing to prepare an AfD nomination, there is no need for an AfD discussion.  Maybe you all should start a "requests for AfD nominations" page.  Back to the topic at hand, given your stance and the set of circumstances, I request that you move the article to the incubator.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't think the incubator is appropriate. There's no indication that the subject will become more notable and no statement of intent from any editor to work on it, so it fails the incubator criteria. I don't think arguing semantics about the nomination statement is helpful. Regardless of how it is worded, raising a concern that the subject doens't meet the GNG is about as fundamental as an AfD nomination gets. Even if this were not the case, it wouldn't matter as the article was speedy deleted per the outcome of the last discussion, not because of anything that's been established in the new one (hence why the consensus established at the first AfD is important. See WP:CSD). There's nothing worth keeping with this article - if he does something important and his notability explodes then it can simply be re-written. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 09:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks for identifying WP:CSD#G4. Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot confirm the assertion that there is nothing worth keeping with this article. The version I see on Google cache is an essentially finished article with a picture, that has one sentence that needs a reference.  The article establishes notability, as I have documented above, with the first three references plus #10, with support from #5b.  All of these references post-date the previous AfD, so I don't need to see the deleted article to know that this is not only not the same article, there is 0% overlap in references that establish notability.
 * CDS#G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". Given that this article has 0% overlap in references that establish notability, it is not "substantially identical" to that considered at the previous AfD, so the previous AfD has no direct relevance.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If this issue goes to DRV, it is likely that your assertion of CSD#G4 speedy delete will be overturned as out-of-process. Since incubate is not a common outcome at DRV, but list at AfD is, I will have to work at preparing a DRV nomination and then possibly be involved in an AfD.  With incubate, I can go directly to work at integrating the article and references at  with the current article.  Once moved from the incubator to mainspace, editors will be at liberty to file a new AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of any requirement that articles headed to the incubator must have a sponsor, but at the same time I have every intention to work on the article. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have said this already - I am not moving the article to the incubator. You have three options: 1) have me re-instate the AfD, thus avoiding DRV; 2) ignore that option and go straight to DRV and then likely have the AfD re-instated; or 3) leave the article deleted and do not re-instate the AfD. Circumvention of the AfD process by badgering isn't going to happen. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 06:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)