1004:, which details that a publisher is one definition of a source. Here we are relying on the BFI as a source, not the person who edited the website. If you are interested in editing the BFI website, I suggest you contact them for more information. I hope that this concludes this conversation suitably. If not, please contact me on my talk page to save making this deletion debate any longer and sidetracking it with a side issue.
479:
others.' I don't know who is talking, but it would appear he had a hand in something. Gerry
Anderson's work is culturally recognised, and Patillo had a hand in it. I expect there are sources out there, just not on the internet. Anderson has a huge fan following and there's bound to be interviews with Patillo in the press such a fandom generates. I'll see if I can turn up anything else.
725:
Please answer my above question, it will help me decide whether the BFI website is a reliable source. If it was people who could edit the site, or people who signed up and edited the site, then yes, I would have problem with it. If, on the other hand, it was only "officials" that could add and modify
995:
As I do not work for the BFI, I can't answer your question in full, and I don't understand why you are repeatedly asking the same question. The BFI website is not a wiki, is not created from user generated material and I can see nothing on the site which would make anyone question that or believe an
699:
We seem to be going around in circles. Why have you put experts in quotes? What's the underlying question you are asking? Is there a site you wish was a reliable source that isn't and you want to understand why? You strike me as a
British user, I assume you have heard of the British Film Institute?
980:
I am taking your answer in good faith. I just would like to know how BFI works in regards to editing pages on that site. If I noticed that a page on BFI had missing information, would I be able to edit the page like an IP can edit WP, would you have to join by means of a long-winded process to edit
353:
of whether the subject has gone on record as disputing their content or not. And writing episodes of a television program, or being the program's script editor, are not claims of notability that automatically entitle a person to have an article — includability on those grounds is entirely dependent
478:
according to google, although I do not have the book to check. Google does return a quote stating 'I didn't have the confidence to risk too much on
Stingray,' he remembers, 'although when Alan Pattillo was directing he encouraged me to try things differently and would stand by me if questioned by
315:, and was also the series' script editor. I would trust those user-generated blogs and genealogy sites, as Alan Pattillo has not complained about them or said that there is false information in them. That being said, we don't know if he has a computer. I'll wait for more opinions for now.
212:
except for a single glancing namecheck of his existence in a news article about somebody else he happened to work with. None of the sourcing here is adequate, and no claim of notability here is strong enough to exempt him from having to be sourced a lot better than this.
959:
That whole page is about comments on social media and every website includes those terms. Are you going to suggest we stop using newspapers as sources because they have the same terms and conditions and someone can become a member of, for example,
996:
IP can simply change any page. But I still have the impression that you do not have an understanding of how our sourcing policies work on
Knowledge (XXG). We are relying on the BFI to have fact checked the information on their site. Please read
966:? I've already explained that the BFI website is a reliable source for what we're using it to source. I'm not sure what more is to be gained from this conversation if you are not willing to take my answer in good faith. Kind regards.
755:
you'll see we rely in this instance on the publisher to do the fact checking. The publisher here is the BFI. As I said, it would help me if you could tell me why you are suggesting it is edited by anyone. To me it is like suggesting
944:
It says that under "General" in BFI online community guidelines, people can submit contributions. It also talks about usernames. It sounds to me like people can add info without a source... Are those edits patrolled?
166:
270:
119:
250:
474:. He worked on almost all of Gerry Anderson's "marionation" television series and appears to have had creative input. He's namechecked at best 19 times by full name in
290:
230:
160:
862:
I was just wondering if it said anywhere on the BFI site if only staff can edit it or if there was anything indicating that people can register and edit it.
471:
333:
disputed the accuracy of the information in the blogs and genealogy sites or not; as you state, it's impossible for us to know whether he's even
126:
505:
700:
I don't think I can carry this conversation much further without some more information on your part that doesn't consist of questions.
17:
92:
87:
639:. The website is maintained and built by the BFI, maintainers of the world's largest film archive and publishers of the respected
96:
59:
898:
It discusses being a BFI member, does that mean they can edit the site, or does a person require special privileges to do so?
79:
181:
148:
408:
384:
1036:
40:
556:: is bfi.org.uk a reliable source? If anybody can add to it, then it's not, as that would essentially make it a wiki.
298:
278:
258:
238:
830:
but that's pride for you! What I still can't fathom is why anyone is suggesting the BFI website is user generated.
494:
142:
844:
And to be fair
Bearcat, we only generally deprecate user generated content, it's not an absolute given! :)
751:
Judging reliability of sourcing is an art not a science. Here we're only using it for credits. If you read
1013:
990:
975:
954:
925:
907:
889:
871:
853:
839:
813:
771:
735:
709:
683:
658:
636:
619:
590:
578:
565:
548:
517:
488:
454:
450:
423:
399:
371:
324:
302:
294:
282:
274:
262:
254:
242:
234:
222:
138:
61:
1032:
419:
395:
36:
536:
467:
442:
986:
950:
903:
867:
731:
679:
615:
561:
320:
188:
57:
610:
anybody is able to add to it, that would make it a wiki. Can anybody add to it and if not, who can?
174:
1001:
527:
Have rewritten article and provided references to reliable sources so that article now satisfies
83:
797:
209:
205:
809:
502:
446:
367:
218:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1031:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1009:
971:
921:
885:
849:
835:
767:
705:
654:
641:
586:
544:
513:
484:
532:
528:
463:
438:
434:
201:
154:
982:
946:
899:
863:
746:
727:
694:
675:
630:
611:
572:
557:
316:
52:
827:
801:
355:
646:
499:
Supermarionation
Classics: Stingray, Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons
997:
823:
752:
75:
67:
962:
805:
363:
345:
rules specifically state that user-generated content sites and WordPress blogs are
214:
113:
1005:
967:
917:
881:
845:
831:
763:
720:
701:
669:
650:
601:
582:
540:
509:
480:
758:
916:
Does it say anywhere on the site that membership allows you to edit it? ;)
311:: Alan Pattillo should have an article; he directed and wrote episodes of
476:
What Made
Thunderbirds Go!: The Authorized Biography of Gerry Anderson
501:. Rogers, Dave; Drake, Chris; Bassett, Graeme. London, UK: Boxtree.
362:
them in that role, not on "must have an article because he exists".
674:
But are these "experts" people who register and/or edit, or what?
800:
sites, where anybody can submit anything for publication, as not
649:
for film. It's maintained and updated by experts in the field.
1027:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
539:. Please take into account the change to article when closing.
411:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
387:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
726:
content, then I would treat it as reliable. Does this help?
271:
list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions
109:
105:
101:
173:
493:
He's definitely been interviewed, he's quoted in the
981:
it, or would you have to become an employee of BFI?
577:Could you explain why you think the website of the
417:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
393:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
187:
606:I never said I thought it was a wiki. I said that
822:Hey Bearcat long time no see. I always preferred
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1039:). No further edits should be made to this page.
792:to communicate his concern, but Knowledge (XXG)
251:list of Television-related deletion discussions
8:
291:list of England-related deletion discussions
289:Note: This debate has been included in the
269:Note: This debate has been included in the
249:Note: This debate has been included in the
231:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
229:Note: This debate has been included in the
497:article, sourced to Marriott, John (1993).
470:. Won an Emmy in 1979 for film editing on
472:All Quiet on the Western Front (1979 film)
288:
268:
248:
228:
204:of a television writer, based entirely on
445:. Working on one TV series isn't enough.
358:media coverage you can or cannot provide
788:Plankton55 admittedly used the wrong
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
826:and the essay I drafted on sourcing
762:is edited by anyone, if that helps.
341:their accuracy or lack thereof. But
804:or notability-conferring sources.
24:
880:Have you checked the site? ;)
62:15:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
1:
1014:10:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
991:12:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
976:08:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
955:23:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
926:22:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
908:22:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
890:22:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
872:22:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
854:22:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
840:22:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
814:18:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
772:22:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
736:17:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
710:16:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
684:15:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
659:08:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
620:19:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
591:18:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
566:15:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
549:11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
518:09:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
489:09:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
455:08:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
424:05:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
400:03:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
372:16:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
325:09:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
303:01:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
283:01:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
263:01:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
243:01:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
223:01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
1056:
329:It doesn't matter whether
645:magazine. It's like the
1029:Please do not modify it.
635:It's the website of the
495:Thunderbirds (TV series)
32:Please do not modify it.
798:user-generated content
637:British Film Institute
579:British Film Institute
208:genealogy sites and
462:. Actually passes
349:invalid sourcing,
1012:
974:
924:
888:
852:
838:
770:
708:
657:
642:Sight & Sound
589:
547:
516:
506:978-1-85283-900-0
487:
426:
402:
305:
295:Shawn in Montreal
285:
275:Shawn in Montreal
265:
255:Shawn in Montreal
245:
235:Shawn in Montreal
1047:
1008:
970:
920:
884:
848:
834:
766:
750:
724:
704:
698:
673:
653:
634:
605:
585:
576:
543:
512:
483:
422:
416:
414:
412:
398:
392:
390:
388:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
48:The result was
34:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1037:deletion review
1000:, particularly
744:
718:
692:
667:
628:
599:
570:
427:
418:
407:
405:
403:
394:
383:
381:
356:reliable source
337:them or not to
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1053:
1051:
1042:
1041:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
911:
910:
893:
892:
875:
874:
857:
856:
842:
817:
816:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
739:
738:
713:
712:
687:
686:
662:
661:
647:British Museum
623:
622:
594:
593:
551:
522:
521:
520:
457:
415:
404:
391:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
286:
266:
246:
206:user-generated
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1052:
1040:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1025:
1024:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
994:
993:
992:
988:
984:
979:
978:
977:
973:
969:
965:
964:
958:
957:
956:
952:
948:
943:
927:
923:
919:
915:
914:
913:
912:
909:
905:
901:
897:
896:
895:
894:
891:
887:
883:
879:
878:
877:
876:
873:
869:
865:
861:
860:
859:
858:
855:
851:
847:
843:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
820:
819:
818:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
786:
773:
769:
765:
761:
760:
754:
748:
743:
742:
741:
740:
737:
733:
729:
722:
717:
716:
715:
714:
711:
707:
703:
696:
691:
690:
689:
688:
685:
681:
677:
671:
666:
665:
664:
663:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
643:
638:
632:
627:
626:
625:
624:
621:
617:
613:
609:
603:
598:
597:
596:
595:
592:
588:
584:
580:
574:
569:
568:
567:
563:
559:
555:
552:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
504:
500:
496:
492:
491:
490:
486:
482:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
458:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
429:
428:
425:
421:
420:North America
413:
410:
401:
397:
396:North America
389:
386:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
307:
306:
304:
300:
296:
292:
287:
284:
280:
276:
272:
267:
264:
260:
256:
252:
247:
244:
240:
236:
232:
227:
226:
225:
224:
220:
216:
211:
207:
203:
199:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:Alan Pattillo
73:
72:
69:
68:Alan Pattillo
66:
64:
63:
60:
58:
56:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1028:
1026:
963:The Guardian
961:
793:
789:
757:
640:
607:
553:
524:
498:
475:
459:
447:Clarityfiend
430:
406:
382:
359:
354:on how much
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
313:Thunderbirds
312:
308:
197:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
581:is a wiki?
537:WP:CREATIVE
468:WP:CREATIVE
443:WP:CREATIVE
161:free images
983:Plankton55
947:Plankton55
900:Plankton55
864:Plankton55
796:deprecate
747:Plankton55
728:Plankton55
695:Plankton55
676:Plankton55
631:Plankton55
612:Plankton55
573:Plankton55
558:Plankton55
351:regardless
347:inherently
317:Plankton55
54:Ritchie333
1033:talk page
1002:WP:SOURCE
759:The Times
37:talk page
1035:or in a
802:reliable
433:. Fails
409:Relisted
385:Relisted
339:evaluate
120:View log
39:or in a
806:Bearcat
554:Comment
364:Bearcat
215:Bearcat
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
1006:Hiding
968:Hiding
918:Hiding
882:Hiding
846:Hiding
832:Hiding
764:Hiding
721:Hiding
702:Hiding
670:Hiding
651:Hiding
602:Hiding
583:Hiding
541:Hiding
533:WP:BIO
529:WP:GNG
510:Hiding
481:Hiding
464:WP:BIO
439:WP:BIO
435:WP:GNG
431:Delete
202:WP:BLP
198:Delete
139:Google
97:delete
828:WP:IS
360:about
210:blogs
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
998:WP:V
987:talk
951:talk
904:talk
868:talk
824:WP:V
810:talk
794:does
790:word
753:WP:V
732:talk
680:talk
616:talk
562:talk
535:and
525:Note
503:ISBN
466:and
460:Keep
451:talk
441:and
368:talk
335:seen
331:he's
321:talk
309:Keep
299:talk
279:talk
259:talk
239:talk
219:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
50:keep
343:our
189:TWL
118:– (
989:)
953:)
906:)
870:)
812:)
734:)
682:)
618:)
608:if
564:)
531:,
508:.
453:)
437:,
370:)
323:)
301:)
293:.
281:)
273:.
261:)
253:.
241:)
233:.
221:)
200:.
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
1010:T
985:(
972:T
949:(
922:T
902:(
886:T
866:(
850:T
836:T
808:(
768:T
749::
745:@
730:(
723::
719:@
706:T
697::
693:@
678:(
672::
668:@
655:T
633::
629:@
614:(
604::
600:@
587:T
575::
571:@
560:(
545:T
514:T
485:T
449:(
366:(
319:(
297:(
277:(
257:(
237:(
217:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.