Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Desir (filmmaker)

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. Randykitty (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Desir (filmmaker)[edit]

[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)

Overly promotional page for Non notable filmmaker. Stuff full of unsourced personal info and opinion. Uses sources like Classmates and RateMyProfessors.I'm very suprised this got approved through AFC. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the band. this one is probably the best source about his filmmaking but that just has a capsule review. He is also an acedemic but his postitions are not high enough for WP:PROF. There is a news event about not getting tenure but that is just a minor event, not the basis for a blp. (Even if you disagree with that last bit this article would need some TNT). A search (hindered by the footballer) found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~' In 2013 I saw an even more over-personal promotional Draft version of this, and approved it after removing much of the promotionalism . In 2018 a different spa than the first editor added back most of what I removed, and not surprisingly it then attracted attention, leading to this AfD. If there is notability , it is as a film-maker, and it would in large part depend on "The Gods & The Thief." which was included in several relatively minor festivals, but including a collective exhibition at the Whitney Museum of American Art. It was probably the Whitney exhibit that led me to think it possibly worth accepting. I am much less sure I would have accepted it now, and the foolish attempt to restore promotionalism makes the purpose of the article obvious. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot fund good sources and the article sources are very poor.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found reliable sources, cited them, tightened writing, removed POV, duplicate info and dup sources. While the article still needs work, it passes notability guidelines. Also, the subject is cited in several books as a cinematographer. Passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2019
Commment @AuthorAuthor:, I have to disagree with that... of the three sources you added in your edits (thank you) there is one from UCLA (not independent) and two from the Berkeley Beacon that deal with the racial issues of a tenure denial At Emerson College. (Ironically, and just speaking generally, you get denied tenure for the same reason you get denied at AfD: lack of independent recognition of your work.) The Berkeley Beacon is Emerson's in-house student newspaper, unless I am mistaken. He was a student at UCLA, and a professor at Emerson, so those are not independent sources. Taken all together, that is not much improved in terms of sourcing from what we had at nomination. I also went looking for the books you mentioned and could only find trivial or passing mentions, so if you can point those out that would be appreciated.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Student newspapers may have significant editorial independence, so they may not necessarily present a conflict of interest when discussing WP:IIS, particularly when they're criticising their own administration. Also, besides not being very independent, the UCLA source is pretty indiscriminate. romnempire (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the films had gotten widespread distribution (box office or television) and a bit of press in addition to the exhibitions, it would be a keeper but with some much needed work. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep I consider the current article much more satisfactory as an article, although notability is still uncertain. (But surely you can find better evidence for his college positions than rate my professors and a former student's reminiscence) DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're currently on the fence here it seems as far as consensus goes - relisting to see if some more discussion can come to light with DGG crossing the aisle to a weak keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of these sources fail our test for independent, in-depth coverage in reliable publications.

Sources 1-6 are published by places where he worked or studied.
Source 7 is an indie film blog.
Source 8 is UCLA, where he studied.
Source 9 is presumably a film index:Movingimagesource.us.
Source 10 and 11 are film festival listings for the Amiens International Film Festival". not independent.
Source 12 is an event listing for Emerson, where he worked.
Source 13 is the first evidence of coverage: a paragraph in the Chicago Tribune.
Source The last ref is a Worldcat entry, which we probably should not be using.

Does he meet some kind of filmmaker notability test? If not, this is a clear GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comment - Your conclusions about the sources are not accurate.

Sources 2 and 3 are the The Berkeley Beacon, an Emerson College newspaper. College/university newspapers are historically known for their independent journalism and not influenced by the institutions they write about, and college newspapers are financed independently through ads student advertising staff get.
Source 4 is the Bay State Banner, an independent traditional newspaper with a readership mostly in the African-American communities of Boston, Mass.
Source 5 is the Ithaca College News, another independent college newspaper not funded by the college it covers. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorAuthor, student newspapers published from within the institution they are covering are not independent sources. They are published by people who believe in their own institution, generally, and when writing about institutional subjects they are subject to many conflicts of interest. They also write about subjects of internal interest. It's essentially a semi-inependent an institutional organ. The objectivity is not the same as something outside of the institution. IN any case, the fact that the article relies on so many sources connected to places where he has taught, and not on independent recognition in the general press, is indicative of the lack of notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable as a professor (fails WP:NPROF), as a filmaker (no reviews of his works, no indication they are significant, fails WP:NCREATIVE) and in general (fails WP:NBIO - there's a bit of niche coverage due to WP:ONEEVENT of him getting fired and trying to make it into a civil rights issue...). Nope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't seem notable as a filmmaker or professor and I don't believe the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'm going with a weak delete because I can only see one film he participated in that appears to be even barely notable enough, as far as being on Wikipedia is concerned. But the otherwise weak sourcing keeps me on the delete side.TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:32, 3 May 2019 (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.