Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael McMahon (filmmaker)


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Michael McMahon (filmmaker)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Filmmaker with no independent sources.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually find reliable sources to reference an article about him properly. He does actually have a credible potential notability claim as a producer of Genie/Canadian Screen Award nominated or winning documentary films — but while that is a valid notability claim if it's sourced properly, it isn't so very meganotable as to exempt a person from having to have any acceptable reliable sources just because the article has the word "award" in it. But even on a ProQuest search I just can't find anything good — I can find a few stray namechecks of his existence, but nothing of substance, and even those are far, far outnumbered by accidental text matches on sources about different people who merely happen to have the same name. So if somebody can actually find better sources than I've been able to, then this could be reconsidered — but nothing in the article is "inherently" notable enough to override the very poor state of the article's current sourcing. Also, the article was created by a single purpose account with a direct conflict of interest, as her entire Wikipedia contribution history consists entirely of creating and editing articles about Michael, his brother, their production company and the director of a film Michael worked on, making it remarkably unsurprising that the LinkedIn résumé of an associate producer with that very same company comes up as the very first hit if you search the username on Google. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Michael McMahon has 30 years of documentary filmmaking experience in Canada, and to refer to him as a non-notable filmmaker is simply incorrect. His films have received over 40 international awards and his production company has created dozens of Canadian documentary series and feature films. Perhaps try a Google search instead of ProQuest and look for Michael McMahon, his brother Kevin McMahon, or the company Primitive Entertainment and you will see plenty of sources, many of which I have included. I am happy to show you better sources than the one ProQuest search you did. Correct, I will not ignore the COI, but I have spent hours insuring that my bias is removed from the facts I included in the article. I am happy to work with someone with no COI to look over the page and make edits as necessary. I apologize that my only contributions are related to this company, but I thought I'd give it a go for the first time once I realized these prominent Canadian documentary filmmakers had no pages, when many of their colleagues with less notoriety do. I have read through the entire COI page and have ensured that my COI is not getting in the way of my editing. I am not being paid to create this Wikipedia page, but simply think that 30 years of hard work by Canadian documentary filmmakers should be honoured and remembered. Primitive Entertainment, Michael McMahon and Kevin McMahon all have countless sources online that reference and praise their work. I am looking to create a Wiki page that gathers all those facts in one place.Maevekern (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they and their work exist — the notability test is not "has done stuff", it is "has received reliable source coverage about the stuff he's done". For example, a film is not automatically notable just because it exists, or because its existence has been listed on IMDb — a film becomes notable when the likes of Norman Wilner or Radheyan Simonpillai or Richard Crouse or Geoff Pevere or Barry Hertz or Chris Knight or Eli Glasner or Craig Takeuchi have reviewed said film for media outlets like The Globe and Mail, the National Post, CBC, CTV, Global, the Toronto Star, the Montreal Gazette, Now or The Georgia Straight. And by the same token, a film producer is not automatically notable just because he has a "staff" profile on the self-published website of his own company, or an IMDB profile, or press releases issued by his own company — a film producer becomes notable when journalists have produced and published content that independently analyzes the significance of his production work in newspapers or magazines or books. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Luckily, Michael McMahon has indeed received plenty of reliable source coverage. For example, in the Globe and Mail article titled "The Canadian film industry is on pause – but once it’s back, how can we make it better than ever?" includes as story about producer Michael McMahon who is editing, remotely, his four-part CBC series about Canadian authors, Writing the Land. Additionally, his work is covered in the Toronto Star article "Nominees in major categories for the 23rd Gemini Awards". I am not claiming that he is automatically notable, I am claiming that he is very well known in the documentary world, both locally and internationally. And I would appreciate your help in building up this page to your standards. I am relatively new to Wikipedia contributions, and happy to work with you on the page until it is up to your standards. I would appreciate your support and assistance on this matter.Maevekern (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we're not looking for sources in which he's quoted as a giver of soundbite, or sources that just include his name in a list of names — we're looking for sources in which he and his work are the things that other people are talking about: critical analysis about his work, news reportage about his work, and on and so forth. Being a giver of soundbite in an article whose primary subject is something other than him does not help — for example, this article helps to support the notability of Paul Humphrey as its subject, but does not help to support the notability of Geoff McOuat as the person who spoke about Humphrey's death to the media, because Humphrey is the subject of the piece and McOuat is not. And while the list certainly verifies the award nomination, it doesn't secure his notability all by itself if it's the only legitimate source that can be provided. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2021 (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.