Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Richmond (cinematographer)

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. Sufficient sourcing found during AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Richmond (cinematographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non notable BLP. Sourced only with IMDb for several years. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Found many, many short mentions in reliable sources via a quick search--he's shot many notable movies. More detailed coverage may exist. Caro7200 (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete similarly, I found many name checks but no significant coverage. Notability of the subject is not inherited from the many notable films he worked on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, but he has won stuff such as the Sundance dramatic cinematography award [1]. Additional claims to notability may be out there. Caro7200 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's fine to say might be out there, but it carries little weight until we actually find them.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's hope that editors with film expertise weigh in. These many notable films had to be shot by someone... I don't know enough about Wiki's film guidelines to determine if a Sundance award is notable "enough," in addition to the many reliable sources that mention him. Caro7200 (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Caro7200: the Sundance award definitely helps. But there needs to be more coverage to establish GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sources Maybe Available. twerk000 —Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Biographies of living people need reliable sources. This is a BLP. It has no reliable sources. Thus is must be deleted immediately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This cinematographer has a very substantial filmography. Here are several sources that provide substantial coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after doing some research:

• Sundance 2006: Frozen Moments – Right At Your Door from American Cinematographer; covers the work that won him the Sundance award
• On STRAIGHT TO HELL: Straight From Its Cinematographer from BirthMoviesDeath
• Detective of photography: DP tom richmond starts from ground zero on two new movies from Live Design
• Winter 1995 issue of Filmmaker; no direct link, but this link has the snippet, "otherworldly DP Tom Richmond interviewed by Scott Macaulay"
• Cinematographer Style: The Complete Interviews, Conducted from 2003-2005 has Tom Richmond as one of 55 cinematographers interviewed in this 410-page book (so on average, maybe 7 pages' worth of content about him)

Pinging others to review the above sources. Caro7200, ThatMontrealIP. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding. Are there Wiki guidelines in relation to cinematographers? Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not cinematographers specifically, but WP:CREATIVE is one such guideline. Not sure how to best apply it since #3 likely applies most to directors. It seems like this cinematographer has contributed to numerous notable works, though probably on a level lower than the "co-creating" term that #3 uses. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: I looked at the sources you gave. They are not particularly convincing. ACS is American Cinematographers Society, of which he is probably a member. "livedesign" is an article; the site has a store page where you can buy an award for your organization for $395! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Cinematographer is a reliable source for covering cinematographers. I'm pretty sure that it does not cover only ASC members and that it pursues a wider set of individuals. I have not seen Live Design before, but it is owned by Informa, which is a major corporation. I understand your concern about a self-serving purpose, but I do not see anything to indicate that it is a press release of any kind. Even so, that leaves BirthMoviesDeath headlining the cinematographer, as well as Filmmaker and the Cinematographer Style book. There may be more sources out there more locked up in industry publications. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Live Design looks dubious to me: they did not even bother to capitalize Richmond's name in the article headline: "Detective of photography: DP tom richmond starts from ground zero on two new movies". ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the lack of titling is odd, but I'm hard-pressed to take that to mean that the coverage is problematic. Searching for site:livedesignonline.com intitle:dp, it looks like the website has had articles about other DPs, so I find it to be a reliable source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG such as Filmmaker and Cinematograher Style Book and American Cinematographer, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it seems that some editors are a litte bit to active to delete articles.Christo jones (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christo jones I completed WP:BEFORE in full before nominating and made my own assessment on the notability of the sources available. Just because others have found additional sources, or that their interpretation of notability differs, does not mean that I didn’t complete these initial checks, or that I’m “to active to delete articles (sic)“. Please WP:AGF in future. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Nom: Unsourced BLP and sources provided do not give enough information to substantiate notability for a stand alone article. If there has been a "project" (official or not) to include all things IMDb on Wikipedia then reviewing and deleting inappropriate subjects is just as important. I actually did not see this was nominated but made comments on the article talk page when I was not able to find anything to warrant a stand alone article. When notability is questioned being "pretty sure" there is coverage somewhere in the world (maybe on American Cinematographer?) is not a good rationale for "keep". We keep articles that comply with the broad community standards of reliable sourcing. If sourcing or content is contested, then per WP:CHALLENGE: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. When there are no sources (so no inline citations), and IMDb in an "External link" inappropriately supporting the content and title with no other sources, notability is not evident. A WP:BEFORE is usually performed and the criteria is a "minimum search". If that does not produce results then the criteria is satisfied so there is no need to cast even nicely worded aspersions. Otr500 (talk)

  I've added content sourced to a reliable source completely focused on the cinematographer as seen here. Additional sources are listed above. Per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Furthermore, notability is dependent on significant coverage, which per WP:SIGCOV needs to be more than a trivial mention. The aforementioned source, as an example, is the opposite of a trivial mention. It is even more than significant; it is directly about the cinematographer. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OTR's comments and talkpage regurgitation are out of date as a reliable source has been added to the article that show significant coverage in reliable source and other sources have been identified which can be added to the article., that have nothing at all to do with imdb. Renominating an article for AFD rather than adding identified reliable sources would be considered disruptive,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is not "out of date". Providing one source and IMDb (that conflicts with that source. See below) still does not even give the presumption of notability. Some editors think all subjects should have a title. Some think all subjects with a listing on IMDb is notable enough to create or keep a forever movie credit list of a pseudo biography. There are also some that think inclusion should be more than adding one or two links to a particular movie, backed by relying on IMDB. This does not provide sufficient evidence the subject is notable enough to pass WP:GNG, let alone the criteria of WP:CREATIVE, especially when inclusion is contested for years. I do not see the Sundance award alone as significant (needs reliable source) to tip the scale, and movie industry sources alone should be backed by sources according to our many policies and guidelines if they are deemed primary sources. IMDb is big money backed by big corporations, so that alone means Wikipedia should consider being careful when thousands of articles are created and kept, especially when linked solely to that site, that provides ample advertising exposure for IMDb on Wikipedia but offers little or nothing to the article.

• • The one extra source (Detective Of Photography: DP Tom Richmond Starts From Ground Zero On Two New Movies), added before I added one to support one other film, gives some insight but is mainly about two films. It may not have been looked at (just listed) but it is in conflict with IMDb. The site seems to indicate a certainty that First Love, Last Rites and Slums of Beverly Hills was released "within a week of each other" (August 7 and 14) and the article (sourced with IMDb) shows 1997 and 1998 respectively. It is likely an IMDb editor made a mistake but offering one source that, backs up two films at best, is just not enough to argue that an embedded IMDb film credit list is sufficient for a biography on a subject according to policies and guidelines.

Many industry related sources might be found, such as A Conversation with Tom Richmond Through the Lens - Season 1, Episode 14 or this one (both from Craft truck) that is primary at best if reliable at all, but might only support one aspect. Just providing a couple of links is not sufficient. The opening paragraph of the lead is not supported by a reliable source and is not found in IMDb. That is content issues in one instance but lacking reliable sourcing cannot be disproved as being original research and certainly does not advance notability.

The Film WikiProject gives caution on using the site, gives restrictions, and this has been determined by many discussions, as well as at WP:CITINGIMDB and WP:ELP. WP:RS/IMDB states: The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia as a sole reference is usually considered unacceptable and is discouraged. Its romanization of Chinese titles does not follow the standard. Reliable sourcing from established publications cannot be stressed enough. Anonymous or pseudonymous sources from online fansites are generally unacceptable. So, while itself discouraged as a source, IMDB might provide information leading editors to the preferable reliable sites. I was not involved in creating these "warnings" but when an article is advertised only by IMDb and Notability is questioned, even fans and project members should look closer than adding one source and claiming there is notability. One extra example of adding one source and claiming WP:SIGCOV does not make the subject notable. The current state of the article becomes important if the article cannot ever be improved to reflect a biography according to Wikipedia standards. Why not show valid reasoning (I have looked) to support a biography on Wikipedia (I am all for that and have actually been trying) instead of providing a possible temporary reprieve and a more than possible return to AFD? --- Otr500 (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly 650 words above. See WP:WALLOFTEXT. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Then turn me into an advocate instead of trying to dismiss my comments. There are many members of ASC that have articles. "JUST" being a member and being in a category with up to 400 others, is not sufficient. Please note the last sentence of your provided WP:NEXIST: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. I would be happy to change my !vote with evidence. --- Short enough? Otr500 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the article talk page: "The position of Cinematographer (Director of photography in many cases) is important in the world of visual arts. The person is in charge of the camera, lighting, and grip department. In movie production in the US the position is usually someone associated with the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC). There are many such cinematography organizations the world over, including the newer Society of Independent Cinematographers (SIC) that may prove valuable to smaller productions. The list includes (not exhaustive) British Society of Cinematographers (BSC), Asian Cinematography Awards (ACA), , Australian Cinematography Society (ACS), French Society of Cinematographers (Association Française des directeurs de la photographie Cinématographique or AFC), Association of Polish Filmmakers, and many others. If recognition is noted according to our inclusion standards, and there is some significant coverage for a biography, there should be no reason notability would not be established.

There generally needs to be a defining point when a cinematographer becomes prominent, a tilting point for a presumption of notability, enough for recording on Wikipedia. This is usually advanced by substantial or significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. The receiving of a prestigious award (usually national or international) or other critical acclaim, is a good indication. There are many such awards, such as the Academy Award for Best Cinematography, BAFTA Award for Best Cinematography, IMAGO International Award for Cinematography, Asian Cinematography Awards (ACA), and awards presented by various organizations of respective countries.

Just being included on IMDb is not an acceptable criteria. It is a starting point but Wikipedia has grown so that just having a title, a short dictionary lead, and a filmography section, supported only by IMDb, is not sufficient. At best it is a pseudo biography, a resume, which is covered under What Wikipedia is not, and fails a host of WP:policies and guidelines.".

• The Sundance award (Excellence in Cinematography-Drama) is one I do place prominence on when it generates enough attention and other notability aspects are evident. The source provided above shows the subjects name at the top, and some comments, but is mainly about the film and not the subject. A biography needs to present biographical information, not just a list of jobs, and although there is not a timeline for improvements there is a point when it should be more closely examined. The article was created in 2008 and tagged in 2008 and with a lack of reliable sourcing will likely not see any improvements required for a BLP and two notable films are lacking. Nobody will likely offer improvements after the fact so it might be subjected to a revisit at AFD if kept. Otr500 (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources provided post-nomination. He won a top award at the Sundance Film Festival, amongst others. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above and per Erik's findings, there are definitely reliable sources that pass GNG out there, notable too. dibbydib (T ･ C) 07:39, 23 April 2020 (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.