Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Barrett (cinematographer)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Barrett (cinematographer)[edit]

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

Michael Barrett (cinematographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Outright puff. Wikipedia is not a cv Pipsally (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, relevant cinematographer, award winner and nominated for his work. --NiTen (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only sources are the two you added when you created the article seven years ago, one of which no longer works. There's no significant coverage of him elsewhere in RS, though there is a certain amount of tabloid coverage as someone boyfriendPipsally (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Both sources still work (one as an archive version). I've added further sources. Best, --NiTen (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Prolific work on Bobby, Zookeeper, Ted, Ted 2, almost 50 titles, only few of them were TV series. Won American Society of Cinematographers award, was nominated for this award several times, and for Camerimage. This suffices for notability per WP:Filmmaker, even a fraction of his work would. There are also multiple sources [1][2][3]. Кирилл С1 (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/anna-faris-marriage-advice-to-her-young-son-jack-would-be-to-not-get-married-in-his-20s-101622643525839.html
  2. ^ https://people.com/tv/anna-faris-dealbreakers-game-immediate-intimacy-with-fiance-michael-barrett/
  3. ^ https://hollywoodlife.com/feature/who-is-michael-barrett-anna-faris-fiance-3925348/
comment the first two of those sources are tabloid mentioned of him as dating someone. There's no indication of independent notability. The third is a bit stronger, but not much, and I suspect is heavily lifted from this wiki article anyway.Pipsally (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment There are enough sources in the article that indicate his notability. --NiTen (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This source [1] can be used for references in the article. He won an award and has several prestigious award nominations. And Kiss kiss, Bang bang is a film that received cult following and kick-started revival of RDJ's career - this is what concerns his career and body of work. And there is coverage of his life, which is not common for cinematographers and filmakers beside directors. Кирилл С1 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/Who-Michael-Barrett-44268780
There's only coverage of his life because it's Anna Faris. He doesn't get more than a passing mention. Her ex gets more coverage. That popsugar article is clearly just Arup off of this article. Wikipedia is not a source for itself. The status and wider impact of kiss kiss, bang bang is irrelevantPipsally (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Her ex is Star Lord, after all. "Wikipedia is not a source for itself" Ok, I now this. But what it has to do with multiple publications that concern his body of work? For instance, what is written here, in my opinion, along with awards, justifies speedy keep:"Cannon, and his cinematographer Michael Barrett, capture the best sides of both Los Angeles (all golden light and vivid colours) and Newcastle (misty, ancient and mythic). The lingering shots of St James' Park are equally pretty, though you sometimes get the feeling you're watching an advert for Newcastle United instead of a film." [1] The status and wider impact of a film may give all of its' creators publicity, just like Comic-Cons invite not only main cast and director. Кирилл С1 (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.news24.com/channel/movies/reviews/goal-20081201
If a film is very famous, it has dozens of reviews, and they may also describe the work of director of photography. This is the case: "The film is exceptionally well-shot noir (with the help of D.P. Michael Barrett). Nothing looks better on film than wet streets at night and Barrett's work brings out that nourish look of the past without the aid of black-and-white cinematography."[1]. Кирилл С1 (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.ign.com/articles/2006/06/16/kiss-kiss-bang-bang
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Barrett_(cinematographer)&oldid=1032220287"