Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Bansgrove


 * 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, default to keep - Peripitus (Talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Brian Bansgrove

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails general and specific notability standards. Wikipedia is not the IMDb directory; there is nothing inherently notable about being the gaffer (or any other technical non-creative) of a film, no matter how notable the film itself is. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There's one source in Daily Variety that mentions him in briefly (find it on Google News), and refers to him as "one of the true legends of the Australian film industry", and that he's passed away. I don't see anything remotely like the "significant coverage" required to establish notability. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.   -- --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per A7, so nominated ukexpat (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- what next, are we to have grips and bestboys and extras in the wikipedia? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for gaffers, If they are truly notable in their profession, yes! The grips and bestboys are subordinates of his, and probably never notable. But the gaffer is the chief lighting & electrical tech, and I consider that and similar high-level technical roles as being creative professionals--and apparently the cinematographers do as well--see the quotes in the article.  We need some actual evidence, of course. Though perhaps it can be implied from the films, and from the apparent dedications listed,   it also needs something more specific--and the  Variety ref is I think a good source for that, and I've added it to the article along with another similar reference--I am a little surprised at someone saying there is one, and not helping the rest of us by citing it.)  Considering the nature of the  LOTR films, it makes sense that the   gaffer  might well   be particularly important to the results.  DGG (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The gaffer is still a subordinate to the director of photography (DP), much like the camera operator; they do not independently make any creative contributions. Their job is to execute the DP's wishes and coordinate the work of setting lights. That's all. I'm not saying that there's no skill or art in the work, but it's nonetheless a completely subsidiary job. Whatever creative input they have is at the discretion of the DP and is not an implicit function of the job. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be glad to change my opinion to keep if we can get the sources to pass WP:BIO. But from what I've seen so far, those sources aren't available. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is properly asserted in the opening paragraph aAnd the two references in provided at the bottom of the article back up the claim which is made. When the winner of an academy award openly acknowledges the contribution made by his gaffer, then the peer recognition demonstrates notability in his field.  It meets the guidelines as far as I'm concerned. Austin46 (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Query as an aside, is the quote "Bancroft and his crew were the 'key element'" a typo and should read "Bansgrove and his..."? I assume so but perhaps another editor knows for sure. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable sources that address the subject in detail per WP:N. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve, at a glance the first 100 hits on English Google (all relevant to the article) seem to indicate lots of notability. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you please provide us with some direct links? -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.