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 keep. There have been 2 AFDs for this subject in the past month and a half and between the 2 there are plausable reasons to keep this article and no arguments for deletion aside from the nominators. (and the first nominator turned out to be a sock of a banned editor) I think that settles the issue for now. If anybody disagrees with any of the 2 AFD closed then DRV is that way ===> Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Mason (2nd nomination)[edit]

Todd Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why the page should be deleted

I have reviewed this article and am happy to provide a number of former colleagues who will refute not only Mr. Mason's representations about himself in this article but also any idea of him being a person of significance. The articles he was featured in were the result of marketing personnel pressing to get the company he was working for coverage. I have similarly been featured in numerous articles and was part of production teams that won numerous sports emmy's does that mean I should have someone submit an article about me as well?

If this man is eligible than clearly we all are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penndaly (talk • contribs) 20:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This article went through AfD a month ago with consensus to keep. Although Penndaly alleges he could produce "former colleagues" to discredit the sources, he has not—and there would still be the issue of whether those related sources are reliable. I'm tempted to speedy keep this as failing to advance a reason for deletion, but I'm waiting for another set of eyes to look at it. (Note that the nomination was not properly completed: I had to list the nomination at the daily page myself.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. This article leaves much to be desired but as C.Fred said above, a consensus to keep was established a month ago, and the article has changed little since then (diff). For my part, I see one reliable source on the article that covers the subject himself, plus several weaker sources, the sum of which is barely enough to push him over the WP:BIO bar in my book. To address the nominator's concerns, I see no evidence that this article was written by the subject himself (though the limited scope of edits by its creator and only contributor of substantive content does suggest a conflict of interest). Bringing in "former colleagues" to discredit the claims made in the article would only be OR on their part in the absence of reliable sources of their own. Furthermore, reliable source coverage is coverage; we don't care why or how that coverage came to be. If the nominator wishes to claim that the sources are not reliable, that's another issue that should probably be taken up at WP:RSN first, rather than at a deletion discussion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.