Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Watson (film editor)

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. Michig (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Watson (film editor)[edit]

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

Person does not meet WP:FILMMAKER and fails WP:GNG, as multiple sources of significant coverage have not been found. Article has been tagged for notability since 2009. WP:PROD was contested, but only sources added were trivial mention of his name in lists of film credits. However, GNG says "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." —Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Film editors very rarely receive substantial attention and mostly only for their work for films. Google News archives provided minor mentions through film reviews and Google Books provided the same kind of results, minor mentions. Additionally, it seems he hasn't been active since 2009. Although he has edited films with well-known people such as Eddie Murphy, notability is not inherited. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that film editors often do not receive the same level of media attention as actors and directors does not diminish their significance. Screenwriters, producers and development executives also receive significantly less media coverage than actors and directors, but films would not have been made without their respective contributions. Editing has long been established as an important part of the filmmaking process as evidenced by their recognition at the Academy Awards. Watson received significant coverage in a 2000 article from the Los Angeles Weekly on the state of African Americans in the motion picture industry which has now been cited on Watson's Wikipedia article. He is the only editor mentioned in the article. He's been previously cited as a member of American Cinema Editors (A.C.E.), which is an honorary society that sponsors the Eddie Awards. His A.C.E. membership alone should establish his notability as only the most established and experience editors are allowed into the organization. The fact that his most recent credit listed on IMDb (which has been regarded as an unreliable source) is from 2009 is irrevelent. If having current credits in an extremely volatile industry were are requirement, any individual that was either deceased or retired for more than three years, would be disqualified no matter how notable their contributions. As of 2009, his professional career spans three dozens years, which is not insignificant. Igbo (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Igbo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a straw man argument. No one suggested an Academy Award winner would not be notable - but Watson has not won one. You're arguing that editing is notable because that it is the subject of a specific Academy Award and so the subject must be notable because he is a talented editor. That's a stretch. The argument about recent credits is irrelevant because notability is not temporary. If he was ever notable, he remains notable now. But a single article in the LA Weekly and an IMDB page are not enough to meet the "significant coverage" requirements of WP:GNG. Your argument is that "not receiv[ing] the same level of media attention as actors and directors does not diminish their significance" and that might be true within the broader "editing community". But it does, however unfortunately, diminish their notability here on Wikipedia, as we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for something (or someone) to be considered notable. Longevity of career, level of talent, popularity, volume of contributions or all-round-niceness are not criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (unfortunately). Stalwart111 (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough significant coverage in reliable sources for the subject to be considered notable as far as I am concerned. Happy to consider any additional sources that might be worth considering. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find credits which verify he works a s a film editor, but I cannot find the signficant coverage needed to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, nor is there significant awards that would indicate recognition of his work. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2012 (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.