Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Pattillo


 * 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 Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  15:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Alan Pattillo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. WP:BLP of a television writer, based entirely on user-generated genealogy sites and blogs except for a single glancing namecheck of his existence in a news article about somebody else he happened to work with. None of the sourcing here is adequate, and no claim of notability here is strong enough to exempt him from having to be sourced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Alan Pattillo should have an article; he directed and wrote episodes of Thunderbirds, and was also the series' script editor. I would trust those user-generated blogs and genealogy sites, as Alan Pattillo has not complained about them or said that there is false information in them. That being said, we don't know if he has a computer. I'll wait for more opinions for now. Plankton55 (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether he's disputed the accuracy of the information in the blogs and genealogy sites or not; as you state, it's impossible for us to know whether he's even seen them or not to evaluate their accuracy or lack thereof. But our rules specifically state that user-generated content sites and WordPress blogs are inherently invalid sourcing, regardless of whether the subject has gone on record as disputing their content or not. And writing episodes of a television program, or being the program's script editor, are not claims of notability that automatically entitle a person to have an article — includability on those grounds is entirely dependent on how much reliable source media coverage you can or cannot provide about them in that role, not on "must have an article because he exists". Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Working on one TV series isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Actually passes WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Won an Emmy in 1979 for film editing on All Quiet on the Western Front (1979 film). He worked on almost all of Gerry Anderson's "marionation" television series and appears to have had creative input. He's namechecked at best 19 times by full name in What Made Thunderbirds Go!: The Authorized Biography of Gerry Anderson according to google, although I do not have the book to check. Google does return a quote stating 'I didn't have the confidence to risk too much on Stingray,' he remembers, 'although when Alan Pattillo was directing he encouraged me to try things differently and would stand by me if questioned by others.' I don't know who is talking, but it would appear he had a hand in something. Gerry Anderson's work is culturally recognised, and Patillo had a hand in it.  I expect there are sources out there, just not on the internet. Anderson has a huge fan following and there's bound to be interviews with Patillo in the press such a fandom generates. I'll see if I can turn up anything else. Hiding T 09:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * He's definitely been interviewed, he's quoted in the Thunderbirds (TV series) article, sourced to Marriott, John (1993). Supermarionation Classics: Stingray, Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons. Rogers, Dave; Drake, Chris; Bassett, Graeme. London, UK: Boxtree. ISBN 978-1-85283-900-0. Hiding T 09:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note Have rewritten article and provided references to reliable sources so that article now satisfies WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Please take into account the change to article when closing. Hiding T 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: is bfi.org.uk a reliable source? If anybody can add to it, then it's not, as that would essentially make it a wiki. Plankton55 (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you think the website of the British Film Institute is a wiki? Hiding T 18:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said I thought it was a wiki. I said that if anybody is able to add to it, that would make it a wiki. Can anybody add to it and if not, who can? Plankton55 (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the website of the British Film Institute. The website is maintained and built by the BFI, maintainers of the world's largest film archive and publishers of the respected Sight & Sound magazine. It's like the British Museum for film.  It's maintained and updated by experts in the field. Hiding T 08:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But are these "experts" people who register and/or edit, or what? Plankton55 (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We seem to be going around in circles. Why have you put experts in quotes? What's the underlying question you are asking? Is there a site you wish was a reliable source that isn't and you want to understand why? You strike me as a British user, I assume you have heard of the British Film Institute? I don't think I can carry this conversation much further without some more information on your part that doesn't consist of questions. Hiding T 16:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please answer my above question, it will help me decide whether the BFI website is a reliable source. If it was people who could edit the site, or people who signed up and edited the site, then yes, I would have problem with it. If, on the other hand, it was only "officials" that could add and modify content, then I would treat it as reliable. Does this help? Plankton55 (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Judging reliability of sourcing is an art not a science. Here we're only using it for credits. If you read WP:V you'll see we rely in this instance on the publisher to do the fact checking. The publisher here is the BFI. As I said, it would help me if you could tell me why you are suggesting it is edited by anyone. To me it is like suggesting The Times is edited by anyone, if that helps. Hiding T 22:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Plankton55 admittedly used the wrong word to communicate his concern, but Wikipedia does deprecate user-generated content sites, where anybody can submit anything for publication, as not reliable or notability-conferring sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Bearcat long time no see. I always preferred WP:V and the essay I drafted on sourcing WP:IS but that's pride for you! What I still can't fathom is why anyone is suggesting the BFI website is user generated. Hiding T 22:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And to be fair Bearcat, we only generally deprecate user generated content, it's not an absolute given! :) Hiding T 22:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering if it said anywhere on the BFI site if only staff can edit it or if there was anything indicating that people can register and edit it. Plankton55 (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the site? ;) Hiding T 22:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It discusses being a BFI member, does that mean they can edit the site, or does a person require special privileges to do so? Plankton55 (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Does it say anywhere on the site that membership allows you to edit it? ;) Hiding T 22:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It says that under "General" in BFI online community guidelines, people can submit contributions. It also talks about usernames. It sounds to me like people can add info without a source... Are those edits patrolled? Plankton55 (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That whole page is about comments on social media and every website includes those terms. Are you going to suggest we stop using newspapers as sources because they have the same terms and conditions and someone can become a member of, for example, The Guardian? I've already explained that the BFI website is a reliable source for what we're using it to source. I'm not sure what more is to be gained from this conversation if you are not willing to take my answer in good faith. Kind regards. Hiding T 08:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am taking your answer in good faith. I just would like to know how BFI works in regards to editing pages on that site. If I noticed that a page on BFI had missing information, would I be able to edit the page like an IP can edit WP, would you have to join by means of a long-winded process to edit it, or would you have to become an employee of BFI? Plankton55 (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I do not work for the BFI, I can't answer your question in full, and I don't understand why you are repeatedly asking the same question. The BFI website is not a wiki, is not created from user generated material and I can see nothing on the site which would make anyone question that or believe an IP can simply change any page. But I still have the impression that you do not have an understanding of how our sourcing policies work on Wikipedia. We are relying on the BFI to have fact checked the information on their site. Please read WP:V, particularly WP:SOURCE, which details that a publisher is one definition of a source.  Here we are relying on the BFI as a source, not the person who edited the website. If you are interested in editing the BFI website, I suggest you contact them for more information. I hope that this concludes this conversation suitably.  If not, please contact me on my talk page to save making this deletion debate any longer and sidetracking it with a side issue. Hiding T 10:51, 5 September 2016 (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.