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

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The result was nomination withdrawn and accompanying speedy keep. —C.Fred (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Todd Wider

Todd Wider (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject fails to meet notability guidelines as a physician and producer. No non-trivial sources to establish notabiity. Claims of notability as producer of an award-winning documentary. However, there is no substantial coverage to denote he himself won these awards. Notability is non-transferableSethacus 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom, per WP:NOTE and failure to show non-trivial coverage of the subject himself.--Sethacus 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note The subject is welcome to participate in this discussion. However, his patients, friends, relatives or other SPAs ARE NOT, and neither is anyone with a personal grudge against the subject. Votes made by these parties should be discounted by the closing admin, per WP:COI.--Sethacus 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a producer of three award-winning documentaries he would seem to pass WP:BIO. That doesn't excuse the lack of sources and the rah-rah tone of the article (denoting likely COI). When notability for creative professionals is derived directly from the work they produce, I don't think that "notability is not transferable" is actually operative. It is, because the guideline directs us to consider the notability of the work. --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if (and only if) the awards claims in the article are true. I notice his IMDB awards section is blank, although that certainly doesn't mean the awards are false. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep too short of a time (a few hours) between nominations. Will ^(talk) 20:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 20:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP The sources for the awards, the press, etc are listed in the prior debate and are amply documented in clearly nontrivial coverage. I agree with the comments above by dhartung. When a film wins an Academy Award for Best Picture for example, the producer wins the award. I was intimately involved in the creation of those films. I don't quite get the point of sethacus' comments, with all due respect. I was not an extra in the periphery. Are all producers not notable? Who should be considered notable when a film achieves notoriety? Certain people play major roles in creating the film.

This whole debate began when "droliver" edited "Janet Law" off of the breast reconstruction wikipedia site. The bigger question is why is oliver incentivized and seems so entitled to portray himself as the wikipedia authority on plastic surgery. Has he published any peer reviewed articles? Has he authored any chapters in textbooks? I do not run around wikipedia editing a myriad of references to plastic surgery. His user name links back to a blog with an advertisement for himself. Isn't that conflicted? Janet Franquet was a patient that I had the privilege of caring for who had breast cancer. When her insurance denied coverage of reconstructive surgery, I did the surgery anyway, and despite being ill on chemo, she was instrumental in lobbying with the NY senator for a change in the law. She later died. As a direct result of her efforts, the Womens Health and Cancer Act was passed. This was only the second time in US history that legislation was passed to cover a specific illness. As a result of her sacrifice, this legislation was named The Janet Law in her honor. This received widespread coverage at the time. For some reason, oliver wanted this information removed. I felt obligated to respond and feel her name should remain attached to the law that was named in her honor. A US law was named for her and she well deserved the honor for what she did. IS that not notable? If there is an issue with my name being on the breast reconstruction website, then take it off, but her's should remain. As for this site, I was encouraged by an administrator early on to continue with it

As for the films I was involved in, they qualify for notability on many accounts according to the WK guidelines for film notability noted in the prior debate and listed below:

"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]"

Concerning the films mentioned on this site they are notable per above:

-To date the 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

-To date the 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

-The 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

Tmwmd 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)tmwmd

Withdrawing nomination Not because of the films, but this which asserts that Dr. Wider worked with Sen. Alphonse D'Amato in the passing of the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998, as suggested in the article. I suggest this link be added to the article and the article be proofread by an experienced editor for COI and other concerns.--Sethacus 22:09, 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.