Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Molesworth


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Mark Molesworth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A CV of a working cinematographer, with much namedropping about awards but none actually credited to the subject. The closest thing to a reliable source is a New York Times wedding announcement to the now-deleted Donna Bertaccini. Calton | Talk 03:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: Just a reminder: the creator of this article, Missvangie, has a declared conflict of interest. --Calton | Talk 03:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete As mentioned above, the wedding announcement is really the only the reliable, in-depth reference. The others either do not mention the subject or do so only in passing. For example, this website used as a reference mentions nothing about Molesworth. Perhaps it lends itself to notability of the film, but certainly not to the person. And notability is not inherited. Overall, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Hi everyone! On the article's Talk Page I argued for Molesworth's notability due to his awards, but I had trouble sourcing them since the award websites were down. I found an alternative reference and added his awards on the main space. That should be sufficient to keep his page. Also, as an aside, I found several pages of cinematographers on Wikipedia that are similar to Molesworth's. (extensive careers but no indicted awards or notability) I was wondering why those were permitted to exist without notability or other flags. I kept them at the article's talk page as well. Missvangie (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I found several pages of cinematographers on Wikipedia that are similar to Molesworth's. (extensive careers but no indicted awards or notability) I was wondering why those were permitted to exist without notability or other flags
 * Because they're irrelevant to this article.
 *  I argued for Molesworth's notability due to his awards
 * What awards? All the name-dropping of awards you did were not for Molesworth, but for shows he worked on -- see Notability is not inherited -- not to mention they were all journalism-related, not regarding technical achievements.
 * I added his awards on the main space
 * You mean the bit about a "Cine Golden Eagle" and an "International Monitor Award", neither of which you explain who awarded them nor why they are in any way significant. Which is not surprising, since all you did was cut and paste from the website of a manufacturer of camera equipment, using the "interview" to sell their merchandise. --Calton | Talk 14:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Clearly you don't want to have that conversation about the other cinematographer entries I've referenced because they point to a cross section of cinematographers who have wiki entries with far, far less reputable sourcing, and/or bodies of work, than I have easily supplied in Molesworth's entry which demonstrates, fact sources, Molesworth's clear and unequivocal notability. You may not want to have that conversation, you may want to shut down the significance of that conversation, but I will continue to point that out as an issue. It is not an "irrelevant" one. Quite the contrary. Especially when you make comments that suggest just because you don't want to acknowledge my valid and troubling points of a double or triple standard by you and/or wikipedia, you refuse to address a serious issue that all wiki editors should be concerned about. Wikipedia must strive to have fairness and accountability, otherwise, it's difficult to validate its legitimacy. After all, wikipedia is based on a democratic process not a dictatorial one. Others have in fact been included for cinematographer entries with far less sourced notability across the board, than I have proven with Molesworth.

Regarding your comments on inherited notability: I agree. No, notability is not inherited. There's been no attempt to suggest that as such other than from you. Emmy awards and the like for best film are given for the quality and accomplishments across the board for a film. You have no best picture award for a film journalistically or otherwise with third rate cinematography. It just does not happen. Full stop. If you think it does, please provide sources for a case in point. You demonstrate a basic lack of understanding for the film and television industry by making such a comment. I've included the films that have won awards solely to prove Molesworth is a highly sought after, notable cinematographer to consistently be hired for the outstanding quality of his photography for filmmakers, producers, directors, and broadcasters the world-over. The award winning documentaries he has helmed prove that notability. --Missvangie | Talk 03:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Clearly you don't want to have that conversation about the other cinematographer entries I've referenced because they point to a cross section of cinematographers who have wiki entries with far, far less reputable sourcing, and/or bodies of work
 * Clearly you didn't bother reading the link I provided: this is a discussion about Mark Molesworth, and talking about other cinematographers is irrelevant to this article. So no, I'm not going to bother engaging on that.
 * All right, I was curious and looked. Dear God, you put TAK FUJIMOTO on your list? Cinematographer for Silence of the Lambs and The Sixth Sense, among many, many others? Winner of a Primetime Emmy for Cinematography for John Adams? The article with the great big National Society of Film Critics Award for Best Cinematography template listing his win for Devil in a Blue Dress? Just how desperate ARE you save this article? --Calton | Talk 04:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * ...reputable sourcing, and/or bodies of work, than I have easily supplied in Molesworth's entry which demonstrates, fact sources, Molesworth's clear and unequivocal notability
 * "Reputable" "Unequivocal"? YouTube and Vimeo links to his work? WorldCat catalog pages? Award pages which don't even use his name? A camera-equipment manufacturer using an "interview" as an endorsement of their products? A standard, unbylined wedding announcement, which are submitted by the wedding party? You have provided, near as I can tell, NO reliable sources whatsoever nor anything that actually argues for Molesworth's notability.


 * The award winning documentaries he has helmed prove that notability.
 * He did not "helm" them, he was the camera operator. And not only is notability not inherited, the awards -- including the Emmys you namedrop -- are JOURNALISM awards, and imply NOTHING about technical achievement. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You made it all the way to #9 with no debatable response to my argument? Wow. That's telling.Take away the Tak Fujimoto link. No problem. What's left? Now let's address all 12 of the other/remaining DoP entries. My point remains the same. You base your whole argument in response to me on one of the 13 that I listed? Seriously? Talk about desperate. I've removed him. There are 12 remaining. Have at it. Because if even one of those entries ends up remaining, the argument about equal standards and justice for all here on Wiki remains. Minor point worth noting, the Tak Fujimoto page mentions no awards, neither does it have proper sourcing. According to wikipedia standards, that article should have several flags.

Vimeo links? Youtube links? There aren't any of those sources on the current edited entry. You are mistaken. Are you seriously suggesting a library source such as WorldCat is not a legitimate source to prove either authorship or notable involvement in a documentary film or television series? Because now that is rich. (Just don't supply WorldCat sourcing on Wikipedia. Their editors don't recognize library sourcing.) Good lord, Wikipedia would be laughed out of any research University. More to the point, I've never based this entry wholly on his award winning ability *for himself*. You keep attempting to bring it back to that argument. I've been supplying proof of his notability as a cinematographer for other legitimate reasons, that you choose to ignore or attempt to conflate, but that hold his notability. Clearly he is a world-renowned DoP. The sourcing I provide shows the depth and breadth of his work for filmmakers and broadcasters the world over. He is notable, because he has a reputation internationally as a Director of Photography helming, yes helming, award winning documentary films, and for his extraordinary body of work. Additionally, If you are the only DoP/cameraman listed on a documentary film you *are* the Director of Photography even if a credit may say "camera" for the cinematographer. It's equivalent to saying "I'm a dentist". Does that not make you a doctor? Hardly. In the documentary filmmaking industry the credit can say photography / camera / cinematographer / Director of Photography. That's a fact of the industry. Similarly, if you are the only photographer noted on the credits of a documentary film, he/she shot the whole film. You are the Director of Photography. You are the one solely responsible for directing the ultimate camera shots and lighting set ups across the board especially when there is no designed lighting designer. You also conveniently ignore all the reputable and yes unequivocal sourcing supplied such as BBC, PBS, BFI, The NY Times articles links, The New York Press Club. Missvangie | Talk 2:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You made it all the way to #9 with no debatable response to my argument?
 * No, I scanned your list and your desperately bogus and ill-informed choice leapt out at me. Something I was expecting, by the way, which is why I did it. And as for your "argument": for the THIRD time, because it is completely and utterly irrelevant to THIS article. There is NOTHING to address, because there IS no argument to adddress.


 * He is notable, because he has a reputation internationally as a Director of Photography helming, yes helming, award winning documentary films
 * A "reputation" for which you've provided NO PROOF or even indication, not to mention your telling of straight-up falsehoods even within your framing: "helming" means DIRECTING. He's not a film or video director, he's the guy who operates the damned camera under the supervision of the ACTUAL director of each film/video.


 * You also conveniently ignore all the reputable and yes unequivocal sourcing
 * "Unequivocal" appears to be yet another word you like to misuse. In fact, not only is almost every single one of those sources mere listings of credits, many don't even mention Molesworth at all. And the New York Times "article" is a wedding announcement: it's not an article in any way, shape, or form, it's a reader-submitted announcement of an upcoming wedding, written by the someone in the wedding party. --Calton | Talk 12:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd be careful about cavalierly denigrating the work of a highly published and regarded film critic's body of work. Sean Malin is an American freelance journalist, who is widely known for his insightful and compelling reviews. He is an accredited journalist at all the major U.S. film festivals every year and as a result of the foregoing, is well known in the film and television community, as an accomplished and discerning film critic. He has published film reviews and interviews with both domestic and international filmmakers and as such makes CineMalin a go to film site for the film and television community. Simply because you may only be learning of CineMalin or Sean Malin, it does not mean he and CineMalin are not highly reputable and highly regarded, and his writing very well known. You've made comments that are not truthful and simply ignorant. Sean Malin is based in Los Angeles and has a significant and serious body of published work if you bothered to actually do the research for the journalist you are talking about. He is a graduate of the prestigious University of Texas at Austin's Masters of Arts program in Media Studies for Film, Television, and Radio and has written often for The Austin Chronicle, Independent Film Project, and Paste, as just a few examples. His significant body of published work is very easy to source. -- Missvangie (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sean Malin...is widely known...
 * No he isn't. And the blog -- and a Blogspot blog, from the look of the design -- shows no evidence that the "film and television community" even knows he exists, based on his massive Twitter numbers, all 553 followers. Care to provide some evidence of this regard? --Calton | Talk 17:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure most definitely I'll comment. You clearly didn't even bother to source Malin's body of work at even just the Austin Chronicle: https://www.austinchronicle.com/authors/sean-l-malin/. This took no time to source. This alone puts your ridiculous comments to rest. I've only sourced one of the many publications he has written for and continues to write for. I won't waste more time disproving your false statements above given that they stem from your disparaging imagination and are not based in fact. Missvangie (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment In response to the statement "Are you seriously suggesting a library source such as WorldCat is not a legitimate source to prove either authorship or notable involvement in a documentary film or television series?" - Yes, WorldCat is a legitimate source to prove authorship or involvement. However, simply being able to verify a statement does not indicate notability, and the discussion here is about notability.  I don't think anyone is doubting the veracity of the information you've included in the article; the topic of discussion here is to whether that information meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. As I stated above, I do not believe that it does.  I understand that can feel frustrating, especially as you are being paid to write the article.  However, that is simply not enough. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I've added two new sources (a Connecticut news source and a NY Press Club profile) detailing Molesworth's awards. Those should account for his notability, under WP:ANYBIO. I hope you can read it again, with new citations and all, and let me know about suggestions to improve it. Thanks. Missvangie (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at the references, it can slide by WP:GNG. 192.139.232.230 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So, did you actually LOOK at said references?

One could say the same to you, Calton. The one who clearly does not LOOK carefully at said references is you, because you deleted a perfectly valid reference for Molesworth's award-winning photography. Missvangie (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment A news publication is running a feature piece on Mark Molesworth and his cinematography that will run within 72 hours. I will post that as soon as it is live. I've been informed that there will be others as he has been interviewed over the past few weeks by a variety of journalists as a result of the Brooklyn Museum's Basquiat premiere screening he attended. There's also a recent New York Press Club article about him, which I linked in the article. -- Missvangie (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So he was hard at work schmoozing the attendees, trying to place stories, eh? Interviews are not really going to help prove notability, especially when their purpose is so transparent. --Calton | Talk 17:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a fantasy scenario of yours. It has no basis in truth. The Basquiat film's U.S. premiere at the Brooklyn Museum was on August 30th. Molesworth was in fact approached by a number of journalists for interviews that night, and since based on his cinematography for the film. Why is that problematic for you? I'll tell you why. It's because it doesn't fit in to your personal narrative or agenda that you've crafted out of thin air in your head. You spread falsehoods to disparage and denigrate. It is also worth noting that it is not acceptable professional behavior to troll people off of Wikipedia on their Twitter feed merely because you don't like their work being cited here. That is bordering on harassment. You clearly created a Twitter account precisely to do just that to Mr. Malin. (It is obvious because you have zero followers on Twitter.) It has been noted that you publicly accused Malin; yes, a well known, highly regarded, well-published journalist, of being paid to write his Molesworth interview. That simply is not true and did not happen. It is also an improper move on your part. It's really off base. You are behaving out of bounds on this, and that should be of note and concern for all Wiki editors. Missvangie (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You clearly didn't even bother to source Malin's body of work at even just the Austin Chronicle
 * The Austin Chronicle is a local alt-weekly that he's contributed some reviews and arts round-ups, a far cry from your claim of "well known in the film and television community". And how about that massive Twitter following one expects from anyone someone "well known in the film and television community", all 553 of them?


 * Molesworth was in fact approached by a number of journalists for interviews that night
 * Really. And you know this HOW? And you can document this HOW?


 * It's because it doesn't fit in to your personal narrative or agenda that you've crafted out of thin air in your head. You spread falsehoods to disparage and denigrate. 
 * You should look up "psychological projection" when you get the chance. If anyone here is spreading falsehoods, it would be you, with your inflated claims and your passing off of bad sources -- a wedding announcement? a manufacturer's promotional website? random credit pages which often don't even use his name? All this so you and Molesworth can make a buck off of the hard-won reputation of this online encyclopedia: THAT should be of note and concern for all Wiki editors. --Calton | Talk 14:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - all this may be true, but if it can't be reliably sourced, then it can't be in Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm not sure you've taken the time to look at the most recent sources I've provided. If not, please do so.

The two links that Calton refers to immediately above are no longer up there on the current article. This article is an ongoing work in progress as am I as a Wiki editor. Having said that, the ones Calton objected to are no longer in the entry, as Calton removed them, and understandably so. I have, however, replaced them both with reliable sources. The NY Times wedding announcement is only in Molesworth's personal section and that is standard for Wikipedia entries.

One new citation I've included is a piece from WestportNow, an online news outlet in the state of Connecticut in the United States. The second is a profile from The New York Press Club and was written by an Emmy award winning anchor/journalist. The third source cites Molesworth's first place award one year for Feature Photography. It is a direct link to the Society of Professional Journalists and its awards page. As such those three are certainly reliable wikipedia sources. Please do read the entire entry carefully with all its current citations. There are many reliable sources cited including BBC, PBS, BFI, The NY Times, etcetera, all listing Molesworth's cinematography credits clearly despite Calton's ascertains to the contrary. Let the FACTS speak for themselves. I'd be very appreciative of your feedback as to edits you might suggest to strengthen the entry. I am not intending to inherit notability of the films he has worked on. What I've been trying to do with his entry is to show that this particular cinematographer has had a prolific career in the domestic and international broadcast film and television arenas for several decades now. He has an industry record decades long of having been a Director of Photography on many award winning films. His body of work is the empirical evidence and is easily sourced online by many reputable cites other than Wikipedia. He is also an award winning DoP and still photographer himself as previously discussed.

We previously used a vendor source who conducted an interview with Molesworth on their website. (https://www.mytworks.com/2017/01/13/interview-molesworth-myt-camera-slider/) The materials I've sourced from it are ones relevant to Molesworth's career. WP: RELIABILITY indicates circumstances when one can cite a vendor source, I was wondering if our case falls in the category. Your feedback and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.Missvangie (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO, only reinforced by a paid editor completely disregarding WP:PAYTALK: "Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise." Bakazaka (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:PROMO and WP:GNG concerns. SportingFlyer  talk  00:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:PROMO overstuffed with marginal sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing notability in the sourcing, and a Google search turns up little else. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:06, 28 September 2018 (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.