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. Noone but the creator argued for keeping this article and he did not present any reasons why one should assume that the lack of reliable sources should be ignored. While WP:AUTOBIO is in itself no reason for deletion, a lack of notability is. So Why 10:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lhotka[edit]

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

Minimally sourced WP:AUTOBIO résumé of a film producer and production manager. His only discernible claim of notability is that he and his work exist, and the only "sources" are directories on the order of IMDb that offer raw verification of film credits but do not actually assist in demonstrating notability at all. As always, people are not entitled to articles just because they exist; they must be reliably sourceable as having garnered media coverage for one or more noteworthy accomplishments, but nothing here satisfies either part of that equation. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This article violates none of the Wiki Criteria for Deletion.

1. Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion 2. Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria 3. Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish 4. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) 5. Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) 6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) 7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed 8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth) 9. Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons 10. Redundant or otherwise useless templates 11. Categories representing over categorization 12. Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy 13. Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace 14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

If the only criticism is that the individual is not "notable" how could a person who has produced Films with some of the most notable people in the industry including George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh and many others, and companies such as Sony, Paramount, Legendary Picture, Revolution Studios, ABC, NBC Universal, Turner Broadcasting and Warner Brothers not be considered notable?

IMDB is a recognized accepted source of information and reference by millions of people.

Create and add to knowledge, don't destroy for no viable reason. Lhotka (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Lhotka (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AFD.

Notability, for Wikipedia's purposes, is measured by the degree to which the person is or is not the subject of reliable source coverage about them in media. Nobody but nobody gets to claim nothing but nothing that ever hands them a "notable just for existing" freebie while exempting them from having to get coverage in media: the media coverage, or lack thereof, is the notability test in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The IMDb credits are sufficient evidence of notability for me. That said, I might support deletion through WP:TNT, the existing page is very low quality. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've stricken my keep vote; I'm convinced enough by the Delete case to remain neutral. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An IMDb listing is not sufficient for establishing notability since the biographical details are user submitted. It is not an independent source. I searched for any prose coverage of this person in any reliable source and found nothing. I found directory listings showing him as producer on several projects but not every producer is notable. Only those who have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources are notable, and this person hasn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:AUTOBIO and lack of WP:RS. Also dubious notability given the lack of WP:RS coverage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, and the article has no references. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. References have been added. Lhotka (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you get one "vote" in an AFD discussion, not multiple votes — you're allowed to comment as many times as you wish, but you're not allowed to preface any of the followup comments with a second or third restatement of the "keep" vote that you've already given. That part of your comment has accordingly been stricken.

Secondly, you have not added sources that are about you — you have added sources which glancingly namecheck your existence in coverage of other things, which is not the kind of sourcing it takes to show notability. You must be the subject of a source, not just mentioned in a source whose subject is something else, for that source to assist in building your notability.

And finally, you need to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules — especially the part that militates against starting an autobiographical article about yourself. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a "master" of Wikipedia as you are Bearcat, I have tried to educate myself and understand the process of this very valuable educational resource. If I have not mastered it in the manner you have, my apologies, but I would appreciate if you would not comment in such an aggressive and negative manner and instead educate and improve this wonderful resource. Your comments seem rather personal and I have no idea why. I will say nothing more.Lhotka 18:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we almost uniformly delete the biographies of film producers, who are quite run of the mill, unless they show significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that must be reliable by way of editorial independence. I don't see how this person inherits any notability from one of his four grandparents. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (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.