Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Loubert


 * 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. Tone 00:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Loubert

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unnotable person. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Without significant coverage, can not properly meet WP:BLP. Prod removed by User:T. Anthony with note of "He's apparently shared several Daytime Emmies and Gemini Awards" however presuming this claim comes from IMDB, which is not RS, and further all awards listed were for various television series, not Loubert himself. Like most business executives, he's been quoted in various sound bites about his company, but that in itself does not confer notability to him nor is it possible to craft a valid article from that. As it is, such reports can only confirm his job titles. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. |+emmy&hl=en This article confirms one of his Daytime Emmy wins. Furthermore, the claim that the awards he won "were for various television series, not Loubert himself" seems like something of a non sequitur to me. Television producers achieve notability by producing notable television shows, so if a person wins awards for being a producer on multiple television shows, that tends to support the idea that the person is notable as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He did not win the award for producer, the series one an award for best series. Not the same thing, and notability is not inherited. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe there is enough found through a news search for this individual to allow the article to be expanded and sourced. There's no reason for it to remain an unsourced stub when it can be improved.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please actually point to SPECIFIC sources that give HIM significant coverage, not claims of sources based on a google news search, which I already addressed in my nom. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nominator misrepresents WP:NOTINHERITED, which is not a blanket proscription on associative notability, and is quite explicitly of limited applicability to creative works. Producing TV shows which have won multiple awards is generally sufficient to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep producers are notable because of the works they produce--as are all other professionals. It's the basis of notability for everyone in such a profession.    DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per DGG. Flowanda | Talk 08:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting deleting for the same reasons as DGG is suggesting keeping? Did you mean to say "Keep"?  I'm confused.  Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like he easily passes with those awards. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2010 (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.