Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Forbes (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 no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of a consensus to delete, and a clear consensus among participants in the discussion that the "significant or well-known work or collective body of work" is met by the films identified as those in which the article subject served an important role. BD2412 T 07:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Forbes (cinematographer)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Cites 1 and 2 are mere listings in the credits of insignificant films, and cite 3 is a routine obituary listing where services will be held, nothing biographical. Don't see how this passes WP:FILMMAKER or GNG. Reywas92^Talk 14:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:FILMMAKER, which states, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". With being cinematographer of over 30 films, spanning both the silent and sound eras, many of which are the subject of multiple reviews, that would appear to meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of these films are "significant"? Which are "well-known"? To what extent were these "major roles" in "creation"? The four films linked here are all stubs with a single source each, so there is no basis whatsoever to suggest that any people who worked on them inherit their notability without substantive sources about themselves. He was part of the crew, but without any significant coverage attesting to his importance to them, FILMMAKER does not apply. I'm not sure where "over 30 films" comes from, this is not in the article or any of the sources. Even with a better filmography, there should be something attesting to his role beyond mere credits. Not sure why working at the point of time when silent gave way to sound makes a difference. Reywas92^Talk 20:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Onel5969, seems notable to me as he was a cinematographer to notable films, which meets WP:FILMMAKER criteria #3, "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". Also meets WP:GNG with a Los Angeles Times obituary found in Newspapers.com, in which I count as significant coverage. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "cinematographer to notable films" Nonsense, there is NOT a consensus that any cinematographer for any movie with an article is automatically notable. Utter, complete bollocks. This section applies moreso to directors, not the cameramen. Calling this significant coverage is one of the most absurd things I have ever seen; is "retired business manager of a medical clinic" Frank Rudrow, whose obituary is right above that, notable too now? Generic, two-sentence funeral notices do not count. Reywas92^Talk 21:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That snippet from Los Angeles Times appears on the obituaries page and is a total of two sentences. It's not bylined, and my suspicion is that it was a paid announcement made by his estate or his family. MoviesandTelevisionFan, why do you think that the snippet you're citing is compliant with the sourcing requirements of WP:BASIC?

Additionally, Onel5969, which films are you describing? The article has a rather small number listed. I'm curious to hear what his roles were in the films that you're saying help him to meet WP:FILMMAKER. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikehawk10 - notable films, as per WP:NFILM, would include, but are not limited to, The Little Terror. Morgan's Raiders, and Together which starred Violet Mersereau, (who was a major star during the silent era, particularly for Universal); Stolen Honor, shot for Fox; and Riley of the Rainbow Division. In the 1930s he went to work on Poverty Row, particularly for Tower Productions, where he was the cinematographer for Shirley Temple's first feature film, The Red-Haired Alibi. His role in all these films, and others, was the equivalent of today's "cinemetographer". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:FILMMAKER by Onel5969's reasoning, three wikinotable films listed in the article. NemesisAT (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although the subject was cinematographer for over 50 films, none of those films are famous enough that I would consider them to qualify as "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." The fact that a few of the films he worked on have cleared the bar to have Wikipedia articles doesn't mean that he inherits all of the notability of those films. Furthermore, pursuant to WP:BASIC, we don't have significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources about him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I found Forbes' obituary in Variety on the Internet Archive. It read as follows: "Harry Forbes, 52, film cameraman, died in Los Angeles Thursday (17)." [1] That's the entire text of his obituary in the weekly publication that most closely covered the film industry. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According the American Film Institute Harry Forbes was a camera man and director of photography on 30 films (1917-1938), many during the silent era and the early years of sound films. For that era, I would discount the above criteria that "none of those films are famous enough". Photographers like Harry Forbes laid the groundwork for sound films, and were essential to the industry. — Maile (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have expected that the sound recordists and other personnel in the sound department were much more involved in laying the groundwork for sound films. While the function of cinematographer has always been essential to the film industry, it does not follow that every cinematographer is notable enough for listing in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2021 (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.