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. RL0919 ( talk) 20:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Todd Mason

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

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

I am just not seeing evidence of notability, though there's likely COI creation and ongoing COI edits adding every bare mention of this guy, so I think everything that's available out there about him is actually already cited to in the article. Google brings up nothing. I did a source assessment, which is at Talk:Todd Mason#Notability. There's a single instance of sigcov in local business press but otherwise just nothing outside of stuff generated from press releases, bare mentions, routine business coverage of his companies rather than him, affiliated, interviews, etc., and most of it is in the same iffy media. Valereee ( talk) 18:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Washington, D.C.. Valereee ( talk) 18:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Agreed on lack of reliable sources. Mr. Mason needs to use a personal website and an IMDB page if he wants to list his career details extensively. His LinkedIn and other social media is extremely self promoting (no value judgement) and this article is in line with the rest of his internet presence. The majority of this (unsourced) content was added by a single user that hasn't touched any other articles, and I would guess is Mr. Mason himself or someone he hired. I'm not alone in this thought judging by the WP:DISCLOSE banner already on the article. PDXBart ( talk) 18:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete: The excellent source analysis Valereee has at Talk:Todd_Mason#Notability highlights the problems with this article. There's a lot of sources, but only one really good source. Many of the rest focus on a company where Mason was working and as he's been high up in several, there's a quote or two from him. That's not helpful for notability. There are areas where the article seems to exaggerate claims beyond what the article supports ("Mason created the world’s first major REMI Broadcast Hub") when the source, a press release from his company, only says it's doubling the capacity of an existing hub a year after opening the company's first center. That's correctable by editing, but it's emblamatic of the problems in the article. Press releases, bio pages on his company's website, interviews, articles focusing on a company make up most of the sources. WP:CREATIVE is the notability guideline most appropriae, and I'm not seeing that being met. No solid sources that support him being an important figure or widely cited by peers. Nothing to back a significant new concept/technique. While he's been involved in a fair number of works, the sources are mostly mentions of the company with at best a passing mention of Mason. The article notes that he's won several Telly Awards (but no reliable sources to support Mason winning), but this award doesn't feel like a significant award. The fact sheet from 5ish years ago [1] notes that the judging isn't competitive, with each nominee individually graded and upwards of 25% of entries with at least a Bronze award across a rather large number of categories. With CREATIVE not met, the fallback is WP:GNG and a single good quality source doesn't meet that. Ravensfire ( talk) 22:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment. One reason that the page reads like his promotional materials is because parts of it at least have been copied from them. Some of that remains despite all the clean-up that's been done; I've blanked the page and listed it at WP:CP – the editor responsible has more than 30 edits to the page and I have neither the time nor the inclination to check every one of them today. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, and delete per the analysis of sources by Valereee. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I don't really understand why this has been renominated 3 times. It seems fairly clear that the subject is not notable by any criteria. Media coverage is extremely sparse, and I can't even find any information on the Washington Business Journal's editorial policies which could confirm that the coverage is not part of paid public relations. Chagropango ( talk) 08:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete, Valereee's table lays it out clearly, and my own BEFORE identifies no other sourcing on which we could write an article. Subject also appears to want it deleted and while we don't need to comply with wishes, no sense in not since notability is thin at best. Star Mississippi 01:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 11:32, 11 August 2022 (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.