Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick McGuinn (2nd nomination)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Patrick McGuinn
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC. Not one secondary source is used in this article (as is required for Wikipedia biographies). The sources are a mixture of blog interviews, one-word mentions, and dead links. A few sources are not linked. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:FILMMAKER. This is the second (or third?) AfD for this biography. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agreed, I am not finding anything to establish notability for this Patrick McGuinn.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I would like to point out that secondary sources are used: Variety, South Florida Gay News, which is Florida's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender newspaper, and Sean Abley's book "Out in the Dark: Interviews with Gay Horror Filmmakers, Actors and Authors". Also, his films are permanently housed in notable archives (UCLA Film Archives, and the Frameline collection), which meets notability standards. It looks like these authoritative and important references for this particular subject were overlooked.Pclibuser (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please list some of the secondary sources here, with links? Thanks.  Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure! Let's start with the book, linked to snippets in Google Books.  One of the films at the UCLA Archive. They have a total of 6 of his films currently in the film archive.  Interview from The Wild. The Wild is an arts-focused magazine published bi-annually. South Florida Gay News review  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pclibuser (talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 12:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The only other thought I have is to remove the dead links from the references, as the secondary sources are present and notability is met with the archival holdings. These were the concerns brought forward, and I believe the article answers those concerns.Pclibuser (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Nothing indicating that the subject meets the GNG or any pertinent notability criteria.   Ravenswing   00:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion here. Looking at GNG, and the secondary resources listed in the article -- suitable coverage is supplied, over a range of time, as well. Once again, the original claim for this AfD was the lack of credible resources, and I believe we have to review the references listed and used for this subject -- as they are all credible secondary sources, which meets GNG.  Furthermore, the subject's work is also housed in institutional archives, which meets WP:AUTHOR criteria.  As noted in GNG: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." -- And since we have coverage in independent sources for this subject, I feel that this discussion is being misled. Pclibuser (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG and I question WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. GauchoDude (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do appreciate how thorough this discussion is being with this article. But I think we need to review the facts, as the same arguments are being mentioned:
 * 1. Secondary sources are supplied for the subject from a range of time (1998 - 2015). This fulfills WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTTEMPORARY
 * 2. Secondary sources include a book with a devoted chapter to the subject, and specialized websites deemed as authoritative and credible in relationship to the scope of this subject. As a reminder,WP:GNG notes that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English."  This article has 14 references.
 * 3. Per WP:FILMMAKER, although not a requirement for notability, permanent holdings in a galleries/museums is an indicator of notability. UCLA, Frameline, and One Archives all hold this subject's works.
 * 4. If there is still concern about the notability of this subject, per WP:FAILN, deletion is a last resort. Maybe there are other paths that should be taken instead of deletion.

I hope this helps to clarify and resolve the concerns about this particular article. Pclibuser (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment To my understanding the LA Film Archive is not selective, and that a film is in its collection is no more significant than that it is in the Library of Congress. As far as I can tell from the website, they will accept any donation.  DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 6 January 2017 (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.