Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Markey


 * 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. Consensus that the added sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Patrick Markey

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Plenty of hits about a Patrick Markey discusisng violent video games, unsure if it's the same fellow as this producer. I find one mention of him going to an awards ceremony in a Bozeman newspaper. Video game Patrick appears more notable than producer Patrick. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. North America1000 14:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Leaning delete on this one, but hoping to see a bit more discussion on the four sources that were added to this article during the AfD, and whether they constitute notability per GNG. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 00:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Added some sources. He's a 40-year vet and most of his career is going to be offline sources. Per creative he played a key role in two important films, The Horse Whisperer and A River Runs Through It. -- Green  C  16:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete You're talking about the Moral Combat guy, right Oaktree b? Agree, he seems more notable! Film Patrick is not, per WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability is not inherited. >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 23:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Invalid rationale for topic deletion. WP:INHERIT says don't make this argument during AfD discussions, that's all it means ("It only applies to arguments to avoid at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion"). Nobody here has made an inherit argument. If you are referring to my Keep, because WP:NACTOR requires two important films. -- Green  C  03:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks to sources added by GreenC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Interviews are not reliable sources of information. He's been nominated for several awards, but never won any. Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * People often say no interviews, but I am curious as to what guideline it is? What rule are you citing? I would like to read it. I found WP:INTERVIEW but it's just a user essay that someone wrote. Because what counts as an "interview" with long block quotes answering questions verbatim; versus a biographical piece that includes quotes from the subject; versus original journalism that appears in the same piece. It's pretty complicated. You'll have to explain which one(s) and why they are interviews and why the interview essay trumps GNG and NACTOR in this case.   --  Green  C  15:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Even accepting the interviews, all of the references amount to "He's an interesting guy." Not a notable one. Sean Brunnock (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Interesting" is an argument to avoid see WP:INTERESTING. According to WP:NOTE: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines". We base it on the guidelines first and foremost, then weigh things such as importance. Your rationale is entirely based on your perception of his importance. -- Green  C  16:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Think you might like to re-read Sean's comment, there. He asserts lack of notability OVER the 'interesting' stuff... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry you are right, he's saying the sources say interesting while Sean himself says "Not notable." Per WP:JUSTNOTABLE "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable." What guideline or policy is Sean basing the not notable assertion on? --  Green  C  18:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're asking me to prove a negative. Sean Brunnock (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm asking why you think it fails NOTE. --  Green  C  19:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me to prove that he's not notable. It's up to you to prove that he is.
 * There are 4 citations in the article-
 * Local man going to the Emmys. Lot's of folks go to the Emmys. Not notable.
 * Northwest Ohio native Patrick Markey...is a fervent supporter of those calling for change. Not notable.
 * Producer Patrick Markey is currently developing a number of projects through his Fostoria Film Co., including “Heart Mountain,” to which Robert Redford is attached as star and director. Heart Mountain never got made and Fostoria doesn't have a WP page. Not notable.
 * Film producer Patrick Markey, a West Virginia native, visited the West Virginia University College of Law to take part in a question and answer session and screening of "The Natural," a movie he was involved in...
 * None of this seems notable to me. Sean Brunnock (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, you have now said why. That's all. It's not about "proof", just need to give a rule-based rationale why you think the sources fail Note. Based on your reply, I think you are saying the sources are not "significant coverage" ie. WP:NOTE says "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In this case you consider "significant" not to be word count or focus (these source are all entirely about Markey) rather the quality of the source content doesn't meet your standards of notability. That's fine, it's your opinion and a valid one.  I think he meets WP:NACTOR, but we can both have valid rules-based opinions and disagree.  --  Green  C  00:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Brunnock, it doesn't matter how you (or any of us) assess the subject's achievements. If reliable sources have chosen to cover the subject, he's notable. ~Kvng (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. WP:PRODUCER says 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 primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and (correct me if I'm wrong) he's produced at least 10 films that are each sufficiently notable to have their own wikipedia article? That seems like a clear pass at the criteria. I understand that for creative professionals, it's OK if they are not the subject of the sources, as long as their work is, so feels like an easy "keep" from me. CT55555 (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - added four sources: two from local papers, one from Variety (magazine) and one from a student newspaper. Variety is definitely reliable and has significant coverage. The two local papers are also reliable and have significant coverage. Some editors are not persuaded by local coverage but there's no policy reason to exclude it for a bio and the local coverage is in two different areas: Bozeman (where the subject lives) and Toledo (where he was born). This definitely meets WP:42. ~Kvng (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Widely covered per search results on ProQuest. Additionally, he has received multiple nominations for awards such as PGA Awards, including in 2021. 2001:569:5593:5900:90E0:EBBE:1798:3609 (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2022 (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.