Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil McCartney


 * 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. Notability not established. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Neil McCartney

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject does not seem to meet notability criteria and reads like a LinkedIn page Comicmuse (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The article does not really assert notability for anything, although he seems to be a very productive and helpful person.Borock (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Taking the various aspects of the subject's biography in turn:

Journalism - the subject has: This seems to indicate an industry practitioner, but not an individual of note.
 * 1) written brief news articles on some respected sites (e.g. The Guardian)
 * 2) edited a few publications (not themselves considered notable enough to possess articles of their own) back in the 90's
 * 3) served on boards/panels of a handful of small organisations

Consultancy - The subject is: This again indicates an industry practitioner.
 * 1) managing director of a consultancy firm (again not deemed notable enough for its own article)
 * 2) this firm has some well known clients (but this assertion is entirely unsourced)

Production - Again: a minor industry practitioner.
 * 1) The subject has been attached to a reasonable list of film projects
 * 2) None of the films themselves seem particularly notable (again, they have no pages of their own)
 * 3) And none of the sources indicate that Mr McCartney's involvement with those projects was particularly significant

Charity - Again: a minor industry practitioner.
 * 1) Similarly, the page establishes that Mr McCartney is attached in various ways to certain minor charities
 * 2) The bulk of the section relates to his involvement with the IFT, describing projects it has done, not Mr McCartney himself.
 * 3) The article for the IFT is little more than a stub, which seems to verge on reading like a press release. I am inclined to query its own notability.
 * 4) The IFT projects themselves all seem to be on a fairly small scale, and not the subject of particular coverage or note either within the industry or the public at large

Conclusions - Coverage in the linked sources is largely superficial. Either Mr McCartney is the author of brief news articles linked as primary sources, or he is mentioned in passing by the secondary sources as being linked in some way to various more notable things. Rarely is there any coverage of Mr McCartney himself, and only then on less reliable websites. Given all the above he does not seem to meet WP:BIO: Comicmuse (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Coverage is not substantial, and is often trivial
 * 2) His contributions to various sectors seem confined to largely unknown, non-notable, or minor projects
 * 3) He is not widely cited or referred to by industry peers
 * 4) He has originated no new concept, theory or technique
 * 5) He has possibly established the existence of a "body of work", but the extent of his contribution to it is unclear, and there is no indication that said body of work is itself notable

Update I have just gone through the article and deleted: Some of the comments above now refer to sections that no longer exist, given that the assertions contained therein were not substantiated. Comicmuse (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Unsourced assertions
 * 2) Assertions with sources that did not justify the claim being made (e.g. a claim that Mr McCartney was a Professor at a University, with a link to the University page that made no mention of him)
 * 3) Assertions with dead links
 * 4) Irrelevant detail about organisations Mr McCartney is associated with, not pertinent to a page about Mr McCartney himself


 * Delete The volume of references in the journalism section arouse suspicion - it should not be necessary to substantiate notability in this way with so many references. It would seem to be a (relatively) long list of very minor contributions rather than anything actually of note. Although I have not checked every reference in the section, every one I check fell into two categories:
 * Expired links: The link is to the home of a website, or to the home of a subsection. As such, it provides no actual evidence to support the article. The lack of a permanent webpage for these references suggests a non-notable contribution in each case.
 * Very Basic Contributions: In many of the references the contribution is merely a short paragraph quote, attributed to McCartney. This doesn't demonstrate any association with the news agencies in question, merely that he had occasionally provided comment.

I have not commented on the other sections, but there certainly seems to be insufficient evidence to deem him notable as a journalist. Seeinggreen (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep this surely reads like a LinkedIn page and the "Charity" section is way over the top. However, between the number of films he has had a role in producing, along with his writing credits, this is borderline WP:Artist. This page should be substantially cut to bare bones if kept. News Team   Assemble!  [talk?] 11:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This does not meet the criteria for WP:FILMMAKER / WP:JOURNALIST:

1. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - No evidence for this

2. "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." - No evidence for this

3. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I see little evidence that this body of work is well-known or has been the subject of independent works. The references are for the most part simply database entries.

4. "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." - This is the main debatable point. Yes, the films have won awards, but I feel this criteria for notability is inappropriate for a producer who is part of a far wider team responsible for the success of the work. OddElly311 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. number of films is not relevant to notability --significance of films is. The anlaysis by the nom. seems correct.  DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 3 August 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.