Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt King (producer)

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 Matt King (producer) article was deleted by Northamerica1000 on 18 September 2016. The Andrew Ferguson (producer) article was deleted as per below on 8 October 2016. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt King (producer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Advertorially toned WP:BLPs of the main partners in a film and television production company, based entirely on primary sources and directories (IMDb is not a reliable or notability-conferring source) with the exception of a single piece of reliable source coverage which just namechecks their existence in conjunction with a project while failing to be about them. As well, the articles were created by User:Johnnylarue490 -- since the production company was named "LaRue Entertainment" in memory of John Candy's SCTV character "Johnny LaRue", the conflict of interest is apparent. People like this would be eligible to have Wikipedia articles if they could be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, but the mere fact of working as a film and television producer does not constitute an automatic WP:CREATIVE pass in and of itself, or an exemption from having to be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more input would be desirable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The nomination lays out a good argument. They get mentioned in reliable sources, such as [1] from The Hollywood Reporter, but I don't see significant coverage about either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article noticeably simply lists names of other people and entities, nothing actually forming information confirming his own independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Matt King (producer) article has been deleted, per consensus herein. However, only the nominator and the !vote by User:NinjaRobotPirate seem to address the nomination for Andrew Ferguson (producer). The other two !votes of "non-notable producer" and "... as the article noticeably simply lists names... (et al.)" imply that only the Matt King (producer) article listed atop the discussion was considered, per the singular forms of grammar used. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Andrew Ferguson (producer) remains nominated for deletion within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you search for Andrew Ferguson in this source, there is simply a passing mention. This essentially quotes the subject in relation to an event, but there is hardly anything about the subject. This is not significance coverage, so delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert and SwisterTwister it would be helpful if you clarify per the concerns mentioned in the relisting. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.