Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Cooney


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cecil Cooney

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I can't see this meeting the notability criteria. IMDB confirms that he had a long career as a camera operator (including some notable films) but that he was cinematographer for only one film: Beach Red. Google Books contains vast numbers of listings of him against the films he worked on but I didn't see any actual coverage. Verifiability is missing for the early life story but the career is verifiable; it just doesn't quite seem to be notable enough. DanielRigal (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting, I'm sure, but nowhere near accordance with WP:N. Eddie.willers (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redacted vote: Keep for expansion and discovery of other secondary sources . I would not have presumed to create this biography without the extensive detailed filmography available on IMDb.com and the many Google references that you mentioned above. I have added some citations to the life story, and you do not question the integrety the IMDb information, as you say "the career is verifiable" Your comments seem to denegrate the skill and contribution of the Camera operator in film making. There also seems to be a point of contention among professionals about the definition of the cinematographer, as detailed in the Wikipedia article on the Cinematographer; particularly between the "UK system" and the "US system". I also note Cecil's obvious depth of experience and comments made about his work on Beach Red. Regarding your last contention that it "doesn't quite seem to be notable enough" (notable to who?); many of the notable films that he worked on are now being restored and re-released on DVD, and rediscovered; much of the interest in his work would come from those who would appreciate it, and those working in his field (and would like to know who he was). As I said, I wouldn't have presumed to create this if not for the information already available, I just happen to have the interest and information to form a biography. I also see that this article has been taged as within the scope of WikiProject Australia and supported by the Australian cinema task force, another perspective that you might have overlooked. Further to what I have said, and considering some of the articles earmarked for deletion, I don't see why you would bother with this. I haven't made any interperative claims or analyses. Cheers--Jacky Smythe (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The notability criteria is WP:N. Note that notability is not the same as skill, professionalism or praiseworthiness. Lots of good people are not notable and lots of bad people are notable. A career camera operator would not normally be considered notable without significant additional coverage, despite having a string of verifiable credits. It would be different if other people had written about him at length but I didn't see any coverage of that type when I looked. If he published a book about his work, got interviewed in newspapers, received a substantial obituary in a major publication or was cited as an influence by other notable film-makers then that is the sort of coverage that could make the difference. If you can find coverage of that sort then please add that.
 * Please forgive me if I jump to an incorrect conclusion here, but I assume that Cooney was a relative of yours (based on there being relatives called Smythe mentioned in his sister, Mavis Villiers', article and the fact that you are using ancestry.com to find reference material). If so, I am afraid that you have unintentionally fallen foul of a conflict of interest problem. It is very hard to be objective about your own relatives. I can understand why you would think that both Cooney and Villiers deserve articles but I am afraid that Cooney doesn't quite seem to make it over the notability line in my view. We will have to wait and see what other people think. Whatever the outcome, please don't take it personally. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I do have a family connection to the two individuals I have edited, and have taken care to follow the neutral point of view policy. I can't see how I have "fallen foul". I have acted to correct the lack of substance in the existing article on Mavis Villiers, and thought it notable enough to create an accurate biography on Cecil Cooney when such a large amount of information appeares when his name is Googled. I stand by my nuanced comments about the skill and artistic contribution of the camera operator in film making, and the different conventions of the role of the cinematographer expressed in the Wikipedia article on that subject. I am happy to bow to the concensus view. Thanks.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no evidence of significant independent coverage, as required by Wikipedia's notability criteria. "Skill and artistic contribution" are irrelevant, and so are "the different conventions of the role of the cinematographer". However skillful he is, and whatever may be the role of this person, no significant coverage in reliable sources = not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Elton Bunny (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Redacted vote: Keep as stub for Expansion . I can see that my response regarding the role of the Camera Operator is irrelevent to this discussion; just a lack of experience, in these forums, on my part. However I will continue to argue for this to be kept for expansion, on the basis that he had a significant role in the making of over sixty feature films in his career. Several of them are considered classics; many of them are well known and critically acclaimed; all of them have already been reliably listed and described under his name on the internet.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article has been Expanded and further referenced. Research is ongoing.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have crossed through your previous "keep"s because each person is only meant to make a single suggestion of keep or delete in bold text. This makes is easier for the administrator deciding the result to see the ballance of opinion. Of course, you can still make as many comments as you like, you just don't need to restate the keep or delete in bold each time. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  01:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. This has been a difficult decision to make due to the wealth of sources on the article, but I have to lean towards WP:BASIC to make my mind up. Though the article is well-sourced at first glance as of right now, most of the sources point to one of three general places:
 * Ancestry.com, which may verify that an event occurred or a person existed but doesn't necessarily confer notability;
 * IMDB, which can be edited by similar to Wikipedia and is never, ever considered a reliable source because of that; and
 * two reviews of the one movie he was cinematographer in, which may establish some notability for the movies but not necessarily the person. Not to mention that both reviews mention Cooney in passing.
 * In addition, a Google search for his name turned up many results, but nearly all of them were useless generic "profile" pages generated by IMDB lookalikes. Scholar and Books turned barely anything useful to even satisfy WP:GNG let alone WP:ANYBIO. Though the man has had a storied career in minor behind-the-scenes film roles and one major role as cinematographer I can't see that as enough, given the sources I have found.  elektrik SHOOS  07:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to make a point that I tried to make earlier, that seems to have been lost in this discussion. The implication has been made by the initial nominator, and now by you, that, regardless of the notability criteria, a Camera Operator could not be 'notable', but a cinematographer could. I will not reiterate my previous statements about the intrinsic creative role and skill of the camera operator; but if you read the Wikipedia definitions of camera operator and cinematographer you might be further enlightened. To demonstrate my point I invite you to look at the career of the 'celebrated' cinematographer Erwin Hillier mentioned in my biography. He was in fact a camera operator who took on the additional role and responsibility of a cinematographer and had a similar career path as Cecil. I make these points because I think the statements made like "career in minor behind-the-scenes film roles" and "a career camera operator" are prejudicial and just wrong. If you analyze his filmography, you will see that he worked in a free-lance manner; he was not a staff cameraman, as could be inferred from your comment.
 * On another matter, I find your comments about IMDb.com to be irrelevant. Are you referring to the list of his credits; they are certainly incomplete, but so is the list on the BFI website. If you are referring to the review I referenced; that particular review is out-sourced by IMDb, his reviews are adopted by many websites. Also, I disagree with your third comment; the comments in the two reviews clearly refer specifically to his work as the cimematographer.
 * The fact that Cecil was invited to join the team of a celebrated cinematographer, that was engaged by a celebrated production company, that made celebrated films, praised for their photography, is an indication of his notability. Similarly, he was subsequently engaged as cinematographer by a notable if not celebrated director, to make a ground-breaking film that has been reviewed on more than one ocassion as influentional. (Interestingly, his next major film was A Bridge at Remagen). That he was engaged on other notabele productions; Othello, The Hireling,..is another indication of his regard within the industry. Why he didn't work more as a cinematographer and didn't get much coverage, could be seen as irrelivant; he was probably very well paid and didn't need the stress. These facts and the references and citations provided should be accepted as notability and coverage, in my opinion.
 * The initial comment was that this "just doesn't seem to be notable enough". Just on a common sense level, this should get past the line. The story is interesting on all sorts of levels; the history of cinema; the history of an influential production company; the history of WWII war movies; and just 'the life and career of a camera operator'. I have read the notability guidelines, and don't need reminding; I do think that they are open to a common sense interpretation, because they have an 'intent and purpose' behind them, that this article does not contravene, in my view.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am being pressured on this: I had two small paragraphs when the article was first nominated for deletion. I have books on hold at the library, which are autobiographies and memoirs of directors and the films this person worked on. I can't access them until Monday. Will somebody give me a break!!--Jacky Smythe (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Should the article be deleted before you can access these sources you can request that an admin userfy the content for you to a subpage of your user page. If the sourcing exists for this person you can work on it there and then move it back to article space. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As the nominator here, I certainly have no objection to that. The only thing I would say is that I have seen stuff get userfied and, because it remains on my watchlist, I see it being edited on a fairly regular basis getting ever more detailed and elaborate but never getting any closer to becoming a real article again. I feel sorry for anybody flogging such a dead horse and wonder if it would have been kinder to just delete their articles outright rather than allow false hope to be sustained. The problem is that if a subject is really not notable then no amount of verification and good writing can get round that. Of course this isn't always the case. Sometimes userfied stuff does come back as a decent article. I have no objection the author having a try. I just wanted to outline the risk.
 * The other possibility the author can consider is publishing the content somewhere else. Just because something might not belong on Wikipedia doesn't mean that there is no place for it anywhere. It might make a nice bio for the IMDB entry, for example. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Objection! The nominator is making prejudicial remarks here, that could influence the jury; and flogging his own horse.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am just trying to offer good advice and be helpful. I'll stop if this isn't appreciated. Anyway, it is not prejudicial, there is no jury and I don't own a horse. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Help!!! by all means. Cheers--Jacky Smythe (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said a camera operator couldn't be notable. And again, as I said, it's down to verifiable sources and there isn't enough to merit an article per WP:N, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. This is all I'll say about that. Please don't harass me on my talk page again for the sole sake of being argumentative.  elektrik SHOOS  04:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the article on Erwin Hillier is irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. And in any case, that article is also unreferenced and potentially non-notable unless sources can be added to back it up.  elektrik SHOOS  04:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the comments made above, I recommend userfying the article. Yes, I can understand the risks of userfying an article but there simply isn't enough there now.  elektrik SHOOS  04:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you said the camera operator couldn't be notable; I didn't say the article on Hillier is relevent in that discussion (and his identity and reputation is not hard to verify in the context of the story); I didn't 'harras' you. If you don't have time to read my comments on this page thoroughly and to comprehend them, please don't respond; if you have to rely on the comments of other editors, please don't respond--Jacky Smythe (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, most of your arguments are largely moot points per WP:NEWARTICLE, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:LOCALFAME. And in addition, if you are related to the article's subject as you have said above, it also raises a conflict of interest issue which works more against you, especially given your rabid defense to keep the article. I feel like I'm repeating myself. The simple truth is that there in my opinion there isn't enough reliable sources in which Cecil Cooney is the primary subject to merit an article. If you have books out at the library, then I recommend you userfy the article to have time to complete it on your own and then request for reinclusion. But as of right now there isn't enough to meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Period.  elektrik SHOOS  23:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your 'rabid' application of these principals, have also been given without thorough consideration. I note WP:ANYBIO: Basic criteria; Additional criteria/Creative Professionals/point 3. I conceed that depth of coverage is not substantial, but since the guidelines are not policy, then the verifiable facts are open to a common sense analysis. Maybe other editors have time to be thorough.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I refer to the following part of WP:BASIC:
 * "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."
 * As I've said above, the sources listed in the article are trivial and do not establish notability.  elektrik SHOOS  01:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I noted that above; the sources you refer to are the reviews of Beach Red, which firstly, I don't think are 'trivial', but "may" be not sufficient coverage. But that's not my main point; I'm asking you to consider what is in the 'Please Discuss' paragraph below, and to look at the fundamental principals behind the guidelines. I'm asking you to look at the verifiable facts that indicate Cecil's notability; these facts cannot be 'challenged' and are thoroughly referenced; I'm not trying to advance a position outside of what the facts clearly indicate. I'm asking you to accept all this as sufficient coverage. This requires you to think outside the box; since the notability guidelines are not 'policy', all it takes is for the editors to see my point and make an executive decision and hopefully reach a consensus. This is what I have been rabidly trying to get across. I think the guidelines are designed to combat 'trivial' claims, but I don't think my claims are trivial. Firstly you have to conceed that Cecil deserves notability, which is supported by the facts and their references, and then accept those references as sufficient coverage; which you can do because the facts are not 'likely to be challenged' WP:V--Jacky Smythe (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Sufficient career achievement, including work as a cinematographer on a film in 1967 regarded as influential for its cinematography. While the layout can use a kick in the pants, the article is tolerably well sourced and it — and this is important — actually is a biography of the subject of the article. At least 75% of the dreck coming through the gate at WP purporting to be biography is not. This is. There is something to be said for someone willing to put in the time to write an informative article and this is on its way. The subject of this piece may be arcane, of interest only to movie buffs with a thing for 1960s cinema, but that's fine. More power to the content-contributor who wrote the basic piece. No need to nitpick notability on this one, there's plenty of room to do that elsewhere on far less worthy presentations of far less worthy topics. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Little of that relates to Wikipedia's notability criteria. "Career achievement" and "actually is a biography of the subject of the article" do not indicate notability, and nor does the fact that someone has "put in the time" to write the article. The comment about "arcane, of interest only to movie buffs with a thing for 1960s cinema" is a straw-man argument, as nobody has suggested that that is a reason for deletion. Comparison with other articles is, of course, irrelevant: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The one and only part of the above comment that appears to refer to Wikipedia's notability criteria is "the article is tolerably well source". I wonder whether DanielRigal is actually aware of what Wikipedia's sourcing requirements are, because the given references are links to pages which either don't mention Cooney or merely include him in a list of credits. None of them gives significant coverage. Further up the page we also have a lot of arguments that do not relate at all to Wikipedia's notability criteria. For example, "The fact that Cecil was invited to join the team of a celebrated cinematographer, that was engaged by a celebrated production company, that made celebrated films, praised for their photography, is an indication of his notability". No it isn't: notability is not inherited, and we need direct evidence that he himself satisfies the notability criteria. The same applies to "That he was engaged on other notabele productions", and much more that appears above. Elton Bunny (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am trying to understand what your objection is, summarized under ‘’notability is not inherited”. As I understand it, the notability guidelines are there to prevent ‘indiscriminate inclusion’ and to establish that a subject is ‘worthy of notice’; and that the verification criteria are there to support notability, by supporting anything that is “likely to be challenged”. So, what is it that you are challenging? Are you challenging that Cecil was part of an elite cinematography team, or that the team was an elite team, or that he was qualified to be a part of the team. Are you challenging that the team was engaged by a celebrated production company, or that the company was celebrated. Are you challenging that they made acclaimed films that are praised for their photography. There are so many holes in the notability criteria that it is hard to see what the key objection is? The bio criteria seem to say there must be 1. and 2., but don’t have to be. I have not tried to advance a position that is not supported by the facts; that are verifiable. I am saying that the facts, and the references and citations given to support the facts, are sufficient to establish Cecil’s notability, and are sufficient coverage. Further, Cecil is ‘worthy of notice’ because he had a significant (in his field) role in significant events, and his life story is interesting.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Redacted vote: Keep - I have looked at the autobiography of Michael Powell, who was the co-producer and director of ‘’[The Archers]’’ films that Cecil worked on. I can only find material that supports the notability of the photography in these films. He describes the photography on ‘’I Know Where I’m Going!’’ as “a high water mark of black and white photography in the 1930’s and 40’s”. I have cited this, but it would seem gratuitous to add this to the text, on top of the other references I have made. Interestingly, he refers to Erwin Hillier, the cinematographer, as the “lighting cameraman’’. This supports my discussion about the critical creative role of the camera operator in film making; which is more to do with the choreography and framing of shots. I note that no one else wants to discuss the ‘intent and purpose’ behind the notability criteria. I invite editors to review my defense, and to accept the verifiable facts and references I have given, as sufficient support for notability and coverage.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The basic problem is that unless a cameraman or cinematographer has won an Academy Award or some such, a well-documented biography about a non-living subject returning over 30 credits at Turner Classic Movies counts for nothing on WP... The piece might be better than 3.1 million of the 3.3+ million Wikipedia articles (WP:OTHERCRAP) but that's neither here nor there, because an article by a noob got flagged and notability rules are regarded as unbendable by too many here... (Too bad Cecil Cooney didn't shoot porn movies — then he would have won some cheesy industry award and cleared the notability bar!) Carrite (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While that view is rather more jaundiced than mine, I do understand the feeling of unfairness. What I would say is that this is not something that stems from Wikipedia itself. It comes from the fact that the world often chooses to recognise those of questionable talent and ignore many people of skill and ability. Wikipedia can only work with the sources the rest of the world chooses to give it. It isn't Wikipedia's job to do original research uncovering the meritorious but overlooked. The important thing is to remember that notability is not a measure of a person's worth as a human being. A doctor may work a lifetime in general practice, saving many lives and relieving much suffering, showing great skill and dedication but never even getting so much as a mention in the local newspaper. That doctor will never have an article on Wikipedia yet many of the worst people in history will. That's how notability works. The same is true of other encyclopaedias. The only thing that makes Wikipedia unique in this respect is that we are discussing it in a public way. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comments do not address any of the issues raised for discussion and your personal sentiments are not welcome, from my point of view. It is absurd to say that this is not something that stems from Wikipedia.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is an article about Cooney in any other encyclopaedias then please let us know as that would certainly help the case for keeping the article very significantly! If not, then that sort of proves my point that this isn't really about Wikipedia at all. It is about how encyclopaedias work in general.
 * I was trying to explain that none of this is personal or intended as a judgement of the overall worth of Cooney. I don't like people to leave an AfD feeling that they have been treated unfairly or unsympathetically but it seems that every time I say something that is meant to make you feel better it backfires, so I will stop. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes... Stop.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Jacky Smythe, your conduct on this deletion discussion is unacceptable. You have put in votes for keep at least 4 times, nearly all of which have been crossed out. Please only put one vote and restrict all other comments to, well, comments. Your responses to comments on the deletion discussion are based on "he's done a lot of work" and not on hard facts and Wikipedia policy. And finally, you have pursued at least one user (me) to my talk page and harassed me to give a response to what is a series of argumentative and unsubstantiated statements. Please stop. I can understand if you don't want your article to be deleted, but dogging every editor who puts a comment on this page is not the way to ensure the article stays. I would encourage you to read WP:CIVIL and refrain from such nonconstructive behavior in the future.  elektrik SHOOS  05:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My multiple keeps were an uninformed mistake and wern't intended to deceive or anything else you might be suggesting. My discussion is not based on "he's done a lot of work" you haven't bothered to read it thoroughly. I haven't 'harrased' you; I tried to talk to you, isn't that what the talk page is for. You still haven't answered my original question. I this supposed to be a discussion?, or will just dictate to me. Is trying to discuss, argumentitive? As I said, your words are worthless; if you don't have time to be thorough then why bother. If you want to respond, please read my comments thoroughly first, so you don't waste my time.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please Discuss: As I understand it, the notability guidelines are there to prevent ‘indiscriminate inclusion’ and to establish that a subject is ‘worthy of notice’; and that the verification criteria are there to support notability, by supporting anything that is “likely to be challenged”. So, what is it that you are challenging? Are you challenging that Cecil was part of an elite cinematography team, or that the team was an elite team, or that he was qualified to be a part of the team. Are you challenging that the team was engaged by a celebrated production company, or that the company was celebrated. Are you challenging that they made acclaimed films that are praised for their photography. There are so many holes in the notability criteria that it is hard to see what the key objection is? The bio criteria seem to say there must be 1. and 2., but don’t have to be. I have not tried to advance a position that is not supported by the facts; that are verifiable. I am saying that the facts, and the references and citations given to support the facts, are sufficient to establish Cecil’s notability, and are sufficient coverage. Further, Cecil is ‘worthy of notice’ because he had a significant (in his field) role in significant events, and his life story is interesting.——The fact that Cecil was invited to join the team of a celebrated cinematographer, that was engaged by a celebrated production company, that made celebrated films, praised for their photography, is an indication of his notability. Similarly, he was subsequently engaged as cinematographer by a notable if not celebrated director, to make a ground-breaking film that has been reviewed on more than one ocassion as influentional. (Interestingly, his next major film was A Bridge at Remagen). That he was engaged on other notabele productions; Othello, The Hireling,..is another indication of his regard within the industry. Why he didn't work more as a cinematographer and didn't get much coverage, could be seen as irrelivant; he was probably very well paid and didn't need the stress. These facts and the references and citations provided should be accepted as notability and coverage, in my opinion.——Yes I noted that above; the sources you refer to are the reviews of Beach Red, which firstly, I don't think are 'trivial', but "may" be not sufficient coverage. But that's not my main point; I'm asking you to consider what is in the 'Please Discuss' paragraph below, and to look at the fundamental principals behind the guidelines. I'm asking you to look at the verifiable facts that indicate Cecil's notability; these facts cannot be 'challenged' and are thoroughly referenced; I'm not trying to advance a position outside of what the facts clearly indicate. I'm asking you to accept all this as sufficient coverage. This requires you to think outside the box; since the notability guidelines are not 'policy', all it takes is for the editors to see my point and make an executive decision and hopefully reach a consensus. This is what I have been rabidly trying to get across. I think the guidelines are designed to combat 'trivial' claims, but I don't think my claims are trivial. Firstly you have to conceed that Cecil deserves notability, which is supported by the facts and their references, and then accept those references as sufficient coverage; which you can do because the facts are not 'likely to be challenged' WP:VJacky Smythe (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We have discussed. For some time, actually. Whether or not you want to accept the reasons we have given is your own business.  elektrik SHOOS  23:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * After I 'finished up argueing' with this editor on his talk page, he 'went off' putting tags all over the place; including a notability tag on the biography of Erwin Hillier, which is supported by all sorts of things, including extensive obituries. He obviously did not give proper consideration to this action, nor to his actions and statements on this page. I also think that it is inappropriate for editors to 'refer' to each other and use the term 'we' in this context.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to close and userfy as consensus appears to be to delete the article and I don't see any reason to continue this discussion further at this time.  elektrik SHOOS  23:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * After I 'finished up argueing' with this editor on his talk page, he 'went off' putting tags all over the place; including a notability tag on the biography of Erwin Hillier, which is supported by all sorts of things, including extensive obituries. He obviously did not give proper consideration to this action, nor to his actions and statements on this page.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet notability criteria. One of the sources, the Independent, doesn't even appear to mention him at all. The others just confirm his existence and don't provide much in terms of coverage needed for WP:N. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Extensive defense is concerning. Christopher Connor (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * His co-creative role is clear camera operator cinematographer WP:CREATIVE. His notability is implied in his role, which is supported by the facts, which are not 'likely to be challenged' WP:V; which 'can' be accepted as sufficient coverage because the guidelines are not policy. I can be as defensive as I like; this is largely due to my inexperience in these discussions and that they started before I had a chance to finish the article. I conceed that not much coverage is there, although what is there is not 'trivial'. My arguments are difficult to convey because they involve asking the editors to look at the fundamental principals behind the guidelines; they cannot see the grass for the trees. The Hillier article is not meant to mention Cecil, but to establish Hilliers identity and the notability of his films (that Cecil co-created). Your comments are not well considered, and you haven't bothered to try to comprehend my arguments. I beleive your comments on the Hillier article are what I pointed to earlier, in that you are 'refering' to tne comments of another editor without thinking it out yourself. Please read the paragraph Please Discuss.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Final Comments by Author: His co-creative role is clear camera operator cinematographer WP:CREATIVE. His notability is established, firstly, through his long working relationship with the renowned cinematographer Erwin Hillier and their association with the famous production company 'The Archers' (evidenced in the detail of his filmography), and the lasting legacy of the notable films they co-created; Secondly, his work as cinematographer on the film Beach Red, widely considered as influential WP:CREATIVE. Coverage to verify his notability, exists in the reviews of Beach Red, which although "may" be not sufficient, are not 'trivial'. The references given to support the facts, that establish his notability, can be accepted, on common sense grounds, as sufficient coverage; because no position has been advanced, outside of the facts given, that is 'likely to be challenged WP:V. Since the notability guidelines are not policy, a common sense approach to coverage, can be taken WP:N. The principles of 'conflict of interest' or 'neutral point of view', are not violated in this article. Another point of notability is his life story within the framework of the history of cinema.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2010 (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.