Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jock Brandis

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Brandis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO as far as I can see. Film crews are almost always unnotable. See also the above Afd for The Ship's Cat, a book he wrote. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's non-notable for his film work and I've edited the page to remove the mentions of his technical work. From my experience this stuff is rarely added because technical work (gaffer, lighting, cinematography, special effects) tends to not be considered of overwhelming note on Wikipedia unless their work is specifically highlighted on Wikipedia. I think that this probably stems from the fact that workers of this type tend to do 3-4 times the work that your average actor and director would complete, meaning that their work is more common and less visible than an actor or director, not to mention that their roles aren't as "big" as someone in an acting or directing position. Their work is the backbone of the film, to be sure, but it doesn't have the same level of visibility and immediate notability since you can have many people working on lighting and special effects, as well as many gaffers. Cinematography is a bit different since there's typically only one of them, but it's difficult to establish notability for them since they're not frequently listed in film coverage and as such their role can frequently be seen as "minor". (This is not my opinion, just how it's often perceived.) However since Brandis only worked as a cinematographer on Diary of a Sinner, a film without its own article, this is a bit moot. He might be notable for the sheller and the organization, although both pages do seem to have issues with sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was honestly not expecting to find much for Brandis, given that his book was solidly non-notable and his article was borderline promotional, but it looks like Brandis received quite a bit of coverage for his peanut sheller, charitable organization, and for his special effects work with Death Bed, as his creation of the titular bed has received some coverage. It's in relation to the film, but it's in-depth enough to where it can give some notability as he's specifically and repeatedly mentioned by name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with above comments that there is just enough coverage available for a pass of WP:BASIC] Atlantic306 (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's an insufficient level of consensus to make any sort of call on this yet. More input is needed. KaisaL (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps even if not actually confident as what's currently listed is enough for now. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 13 July 2016 (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.