Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Cliffe
- 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 05:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Jim Cliffe
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jim Cliffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage in real media or books, and the strongest notability claim on offer is that his films exist, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of much stronger sourcing than this. An editor who commented on the AFD discussion about his short film Tomorrow's Memoir offered up one article about Cliffe from his hometown local newspaper, but notability still requires more coverage than that. Bearcat (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, I was the aforementioned other editor who offered this 2005 article, which is more a discussion about this person than his film. That alone isn't enough, however I also found this from 2008 and this from 2012. I am not suggesting it's a significant amount of coverage, but I think it makes the subject pass notability as it is, in the nominator's words, WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage in real media. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)]
- Two hits of "local guy does stuff" in the subject's own hometown newspaper, and just one hit beyond his own hometown, isn't enough coverage to pass GNG. GNG is not just "count the media hits and keep anybody who exceeds two" — it also takes into account issues like geographic range (hometown coverage doesn't count for as much as nationalized coverage does) and the context of what the person is getting covered for (it takes a lot more media coverage to make a person notable if you're shooting for "notable because media coverage exists" than it would if you were able to shoot for "notable because Oscar".) Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- You seem a bit fixated on this idea of "local/hometown coverage", whereas the three example articles I posted above are from three different publications over a wide timespan, of which one, WP:BASIC notes that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.", which I think has been covered. I took your point, to a certain extent, on Tomorrow's Memoir, but I think there is about enough on this guy to run with a keep. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)]
- I'm not fixated on anything that isn't a real thing: a "local vs. national coverage" test really does enter into the question of whether a person with only two or three sources has cleared WP:GNG or not. If he had 20 or 30 sources from all across the entire country and into the United States, then it wouldn't matter a whit if a couple of the sources were local to Vernon/Salmon Arm -- but if you can only show three footnotes of which two are local human interest coverage in Vernon and Salmon Arm, then one hit in a major market daily newspaper that's still in the same province as Vernon and Salmon Arm isn't enough all by itself to bridge the gap. GNG really, truly isn't just "count the media hits and two or more = booya!" -- it really is an interaction of multiple factors besides just the raw number of hits alone, inclusive of both the context of what the person is getting covered for and the geographic range of how widely they are or aren't getting written about. A person whose coverage is almost entirely local to one area isn't automatically as notable as a person who has a genuinely nationalized notability claim just because they might technically have the same raw number of sourcing hits in newspapers.com. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)]
- Notability also is not a comparison against someone else who may be more notable, or less. I have not, by any means, done an exhaustive search as I didn't think I necessarily needed to upon coming across the aforementioned articles, and AfD is not fundamentally about building the article, it's about expressing a view as to whether it should or should not remain. Besides, it isn't just my opinion alone that will decide the outcome of this, I simply have expressed an opinion that I think there is something there to justify not deleting. Others may agree, or take a contrary view. Notability can be a subjective topic at times, but in relation to policy, and the one I mentioned being WP:BASIC, looking at this objectively, I feel it satisfies this criteria. I respect that you seem to have a different view, and that is fine, but please try and refrain from badgering me about it. Thanks. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)]
- Notability also is not a comparison against someone else who may be more notable, or less. I have not, by any means, done an exhaustive search as I didn't think I necessarily needed to upon coming across the aforementioned articles, and AfD is not fundamentally about building the article, it's about expressing a view as to whether it should or should not remain. Besides, it isn't just my opinion alone that will decide the outcome of this, I simply have expressed an opinion that I think there is something there to justify not deleting. Others may agree, or take a contrary view. Notability can be a subjective topic at times, but in relation to policy, and the one I mentioned being
- I'm not fixated on anything that isn't a real thing: a "local vs. national coverage" test really does enter into the question of whether a person with only two or three sources has cleared
- You seem a bit fixated on this idea of "local/hometown coverage", whereas the three example articles I posted above are from three different publications over a wide timespan, of which one,
- Two hits of "local guy does stuff" in the subject's own hometown newspaper, and just one hit beyond his own hometown, isn't enough coverage to pass GNG. GNG is not just "count the media hits and keep anybody who exceeds two" — it also takes into account issues like geographic range (hometown coverage doesn't count for as much as nationalized coverage does) and the context of what the person is getting covered for (it takes a lot more media coverage to make a person notable if you're shooting for "notable because media coverage exists" than it would if you were able to shoot for "notable because Oscar".) Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - current article sources fail GNG - Media Mikes is not a RS. Online only film review goes to film's notability, not Cliffe's. Interviews do not establish notability. I also agree that the local newspaper coverage does not establish notability; Vernon has a population of 44,519, Salmon Arm has 17,706. That's not the be all end all, but to me it shows that the coverage is local interest ('local kid makes it big') as opposed to actual coverage on a notable director. Fails GNG and filmmaker notability guidelines. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 12:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Additional interviews include Dread Central, The Georgia Straight, Moviehole, and reviews in established media like Film Threat. Cliffe is currently directing TV projects, and his latest feature as writer/director, 'The Haleo Protocol', is in development on IMDB. Russo42 (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - as per sources discussed above. I'm not sure why one would claim that the The Province is local - it's one of the bigger newspapers in Canada and about 500 km from Salmon Arm. Nfitz (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: - The Salmon Arm Observer is, however, based in Salmon Arm. I did not claim the Province was a local newspaper. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 12:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I think I missed the context of some of the earlier comments. I certainly don't see a problem with using one of the local references as meeting GNG when there is significant coverage elsewhere. If he hadn't have directed (and written) that 2012 film with Danny Glover in it, I doubt there'd be enough coverage. Nfitz (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly nobody in this discussion claimed that The Province was local to Salmon Arm. What was said, and was said correctly, is that one piece of wider-than-local coverage is not enough wider-than-local coverage to singlehandedly secure passage of WP:GNG for a person whose sourcing is otherwise still entirely local to his own hometown. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)]
- @Nfitz: - The Salmon Arm Observer is, however, based in Salmon Arm. I did not claim the Province was a local newspaper. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 12:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:57, 19 August 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.