Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Hall (sound engineer)


 * 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 redirect to Academy Award for Best Visual Effects. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

John D. Hall (sound engineer)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

He fails WP:BIO. Current sourcing is a brief mention in the 1942 Academy Awards nominations list. He did not win. Before search finds no significant coverage. Apparently sound engineers do not generate much coverage. One award nomination does not establish notability. Gab4gab (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable to me as he would meet WP:CREATIVE#4 (c), "Won significant critical attention" as a Oscar nominee. If not then Redirect to Academy Award for Best Visual Effects per Lugnuts. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - I must disagree with the previous voter on WP:CREATIVE#4 (c), because one single nomination may not be "significant" enough for Wikipedia's purposes if there is nothing else to say about the individual. With a lot of other John Hall's in the world, I can't find information about this gentleman beyond the fact that he was nominated for an award in 1942. Can we find his date of birth, his hometown, his accomplishments before and after 1942, or anything else? If anyone can find anything in old books I'd be happy to change my vote, but per WP:SPEAKSELF I see no use in an encyclopedic article that says nothing beyond how a man of this name once got an award nomination. Also, his nomination was in 1942, but the article's infobox says his career started in 1949, again indicating how little there is to find about the gentleman. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per MoviesandTelevisionFan and WP:ANYBIO, or worst case, redirect to Academy Award for Best Visual Effects per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R and WP:CHEAP.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It causes some confusion when editors claim an article passes a criteria when it clearly does not. One nomination doesn't pass the criteria at Anybio which is looking for several. Beter to say: "It does not pass but I think it should." The case for his work having "won significant critical attention" based on the single Academy Award nomination for Best Visual Effects (sound) is not convincing. I doubt that every Best Visual Effects (sound) nominee receives the significant critical attention criteria 4(c) is looking for. There were 10 nominations in that category in 1941, multiples for some names. In some years there were more than a dozen. I doubt much in-depth coverage is generated for them compared to Best Actress or Best Film. In this case the best reliable coverage identified is his name in the list of nominees. I have no objection to redirecting to Academy Award for Best Visual Effects. Gab4gab (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Academy Award for Best Visual Effects per WP:PRESERVE and Lugnuts. I am not convinced that WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE are met just because of the nomination. If he won, that would be different. Sound engineers don't usually get much coverage regardless of the good work they do. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment - I voted to delete above, but to prevent the article from ending up in "no consensus" purgatory I can support the suggested redirect as well. That redirect was also suggested as an alternative by the "keep" voters. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 13:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect we clearly do not have enough sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2022 (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.