Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana DeCilio

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Analyzing the arguments, I feel that the deletes had a stronger argument here. The sources given seem weak or non-existent in their mentions of the subject, and so the article does not pass the notability criteria for biographies or for entertainers. NW (Talk) 20:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana DeCilio

[edit]
Diana DeCilio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural: I speedied this article in August as a CSD#A7 - the article does not assert any importance for the person other than as an editor of the programmes listed. I have received a request to undelete it, and see no problem in doing so to bring it here. I have looked for sources and found little other than sites which list her editing credits (imdb, hollywood.com etc,), however it is very possible there is more out there, so is there? Black Kite 20:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the editor is a crucial part of the producing of these programs. She will have to process 100s of hours of material into a one hour show, so this for one denotes importance in the process. Second, all these shows have had proven success both critically and commercially and, in the case of the films, have won awards. So I would argue there is proven notability in this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenkane7 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Black Kite -- A quick scan through the other American Film Editors on Wikipedia show that almost none has "independent coverage" of their work, yet they have no notability challenges against them. The editor is an absolutely vital part of the film-making process - and not like other staff members as you suggest. The way that the media cover films and TV is that almost never do they actually mention the name of the editor. Notability is judged within the industry according to the caliber of networks that hire the editor, and the commercial and critical success (including awards) that those shows achieve. On those criteria, DeCilio is clearly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenkane7 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See essay other stuff exists for why editors are generally unmoved by this style of argument. Studerby (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it is a criterion state in WP:BIO that "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one." The award DeCilio won last week, from the Marbella International Film Festival, is one such notable award; and follows on from the nomination she received from the PGA for Thirty Days, and other awards mentioned in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenkane7 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I believe Citizenkane7 may be misinterpreting the WP:BIO criterion. DeCilio did not win an award from the Marbella International Film Festival, as far as I can tell. Rather, a documentary she edited was nominated for Best Documentary there, but did not win. Had it won, the award would have gone to the director, not to her as editor. Similarly, the Producers Guild of America gives its awards, as the name implies, to producers. I can't find any evidence that DeCilio herself was honored by having a project she edited nominated for a PGA award. The kind of award or nomination that could help establish DeCilio as notable would be an Oscar or Emmy for Best Editing, or the American Cinema Editors' Eddie Award. Furthermore, most of the sources cited in the article discuss projects she has worked on but without mentioning her or her work as an editor; thus, they don't help establish her notability. If DeCilio personally (as opposed to a production she worked on) receives a nomination for a significant award, or starts to receive media attention for her editing work on such productions, she can be considered for a Wikipedia article at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. To correct Metropolitan90 on two points. First, American Faust won the runner-up prize for Best Documentary at the Marbella International Film Festival. Whilst it only mentions Faust as a nominee for the award, the announcement at the ceremony was that Faust won the Runner-Up award. This is likely to be updated on the website soon. WP:BIO mentions nominations and awards together, so this is academic. The point is that DeCilio worked as a producer and editor on American Faust, and, as producer, received the award from Marbella. It is incorrect that the director always receives the award for such awards. At the Academy Awards for example, the Best Picture award goes to the Producers, not the Director. The entry for DeCilio refers both to her work as an editor and as a producer. --Citizenkane7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.6.101 (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, you will need to provide a source that specifically identifies the film as winning the runner-up award, and that identifies DeCilio as the recipient, in order to verify this information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added a New York Times review that specifically mentions DeCilio. I will also endeavor to secure the Marbella source. However, these editorial demands are both unreasonable in the context of how editors' work is judged and critiqued in the film industry; and is out of whack with Wikipedia's own standards on featuring biographies of American Film Editors. Look at the entries for Kent Beyda, Bud Molin, Frank Morris, Raja Gosnell, Brian Berdan. I opened these at random, and none of them has independent sources referring to any awards or nominations they have won. In comparison with them, DeCilio's entry is well researched and her notability highly corroborated. --Citizenkane7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.6.101 (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy: Citizenkane7, why don you take it into your user namespace and you and 71.249.x.x can work on it there. The issue as I see it is purely notability: that can be easily demonstrated through published reliable third-party sources that mention Ms DeCilio by name and discuss her contributions to these movies/programmes. As it stands, notability is not demonstrated. (I don't see her mentioned by name in the NY Times link.) But at least by userfication the text can be salvaged and the article taken beyond an AFD. -rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you did not read the article fully. The reference to the New York Times article clearly states at the bottom "written and produced by Alex Gibney; Alison Ellwood and Eva Orner, producers; Julie Anderson, co-producer; Diana DeCilio, editor;" This is now more than sufficient notability demonstrated, and I hope it can lay this matter to rest. --Citizenkane7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.6.101 (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the right article? (I can't find a reference to her in that.) Even as you describe it though, it just of the "credits"-style mention. There's no discussion of her as being notable in-and-of herself. We cannot have an article on everybody that has every been listed in the credits of a movie/TV programme.--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the reference [1] The article does not list "everybody in the credits", it lists NOTABLE individuals who created the program. Since the New York Times is a notable publication (can we at least agree on that), this seems to establish notability. Citizenkane7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.6.101 (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it establishes that her name appeared in the New York Times, which is a reliable source. Appearing in reliable sources is a necessary condition of having a Wikipedia article; however, mere appearance in a reliable source, no matter how notable that source itself is, doesn't establish notability. For example, if the Times were to quote an eye witness to some notable event, say the crash of US Airways Flight 1549 into the Hudson River, and in quoting that person included that person's name, well, that person has "appeared in the Times", but is not thereby made notable and does not thereby merit a Wikipedia article. With DeCillio, all we have is a credit; while one may reasonably suspect that she is well regarded within the industry because she's been involved on prominent and successful projects, we have no reliable source to that effect. In other words, concluding that she's notable withing the industry merely because she has film credit is a leap of faith, which is not how Wikipedia works. Studerby (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient sources to establish notability at this time. Mere film credit doesn't establish notability. Studerby (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having edited the productions is notability, and proven by the award and the NYTcitation for it. "Edited and produced" is a sufficiently key role in a film. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which award did she win, or was she nominated for? No source has been provided yet to indicate that she was the honoree of the Marbella award. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • She was the producer of the film as well as the editor. Numerous sources have been provided for that. Nominations, and awards, for best picture awards often go to the producer of the film. Remember poor Sam Mendes when he left the Academy Awards empty handed in 1999, even though American Beauty -- which he had directed -- had won Best Picture? Producers win awards for best film awards, that's how the industry works. --citizenkane7 (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is how it works at the Academy Awards. If someone asked for proof that the Best Picture Oscar goes to the producer rather than the director, I could point them to this page. But that is not necessarily how it works at film festivals. See, for example, the Cannes Film Festival, where the only person cited for the Palme d'Or win is the director. None of the producers (see [2]) are cited. Nor is it clear to me that that is how it works at the Marbella Film Festival. The source you have cited for this award is [3]. That page says:
NOMINEES FOR BEST DOCUMENTARY
Gonzo Ballet by Pat Buckley
Banksy coming for dinner by Ivan Massow
American Faust: From Condi to Neo-Condi by Sebastian Doggart
Winner Gonzo Ballet

DeCillo is not even mentioned on that page. I don't see how one can cite a page that doesn't even mention the subject, but does identify another person as a nominee, as evidence that the subject herself was nominated for an award or won a runner-up award. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep With many more sources to support notability than articles on other editors not currently defined as AFD, Decilio has a proven filmography in prominent positions as editor and producer in significant movies and TV productions. Isaacnewton7 ( talk ) 00:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, let's look at the sources one by one.
  1. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1385473/ -- This is from the Internet Movie Database. I was under the impression that IMDb was not considered a reliable source.
  2. http://stanfordreview.org/article/iamerican-faust-condi-neo-condii-review -- Does not mention the subject.
  3. http://www.marbellafilmfestival.com/ -- Does not mention the subject. (This is a Flash site, so maybe the subject is mentioned on another page of the site, but I have not found a reference to her.)
  4. http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/video-mtv-s-16-pregnant-must-watch-tv -- Does not mention the subject.
  5. http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/future_shows/2008_May_29_mtv_announcements -- Does not mention the subject.
  6. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/arts/television/11sixteen.html?_r=1 -- Does not mention the subject.
  7. http://www.afterelton.com/TV/2008/6/30days?page=0%252C0 -- Does not mention the subject.
  8. http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/storm-chasers-interception.html -- Does not mention the subject.
  9. http://www.sundancechannel.com/search/?words=Diana+DeCilio -- This is a search result which shows that the subject was listed in the credits as an editor for each of eight episodes of a series.
  10. http://www.sundancechannel.com/films/500257892 -- This is one of the eight episode pages found in the preceding search result.
  11. http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/arts/television/03nimr.html -- Does not mention the subject.
  12. http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/arts/television/01huma.html -- This is the New York Times citation discussed above. It does mention the subject. Here is everything it says about her, in context: "Lynne Kirby and Laura Michalchyshyn, executive producers for Sundance Channel; Robyn Hutt, senior executive producer for Court TV; written and produced by Alex Gibney; Alison Ellwood and Eva Orner, producers; Julie Anderson, co-producer; Diana DeCilio, editor; David Strathairn, narrator; music by Wendy Blackstone; Salimah El-Amin, associate producer and director of research."
  13. http://www.imdb.com/video/wab/vi1593180697/ -- Another page from IMDb (see above).
  14. http://www.variety.com/profiles/TVSeries/main/68782/The+Residents.html?dataSet=1 -- A listing from Variety in which the subject is listed as one of over 80 people shown in the entire credits of a television series.

So that's 14 sources, eight of which don't mention the subject, two of which (the Sundance Channel pages) are effectively the same source, and two of which are IMDb (believed to be non-reliable). Not one of these sources has one complete sentence about the subject, as far as I can see. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have two respectful questions for you, Metropolitan 90: First, why do you say that IMDB.com is an unreliable source? It is a carefully vetted database which, like Wikipedia, is peer-reviewed. It complies with all Wikipedia's criteria for classification as a reliable secondary source. It is used by the entire film industry to assess the bona fide status of professionals and, in the case of DeCilio, clearly shows her to be one of the industry's top editors and producers. Second, exactly why are you targeting DeCilio so vigorously when you have not flagged for deletion any of the other American Film Editors who have even fewer credits, or secondary sources, backing up their implied claims to notability? mecca51 ( talk ) 18:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In regard to IMDb, I actually went through a process of trying to get IMDb accepted as a reliable source, at least for some purposes, about a year ago at Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb. But the proposed guideline was rejected, and IMDb frequently comes up for discussion at WP:RSN, where its reliability is, at least, disputed. Anyway, the only times the article cites IMDb are (a) to connect her with the documentary American Faust, and (b) to list her as one of the names related to a trailer from By the Side of the Road. I don't dispute that she is associated with those films, but they don't obviously establish that she is one of the industry's top editors and producers. As to me targeting DeCilio, I didn't nominate this page for deletion. I just happened to get involved in this deletion discussion. As to other film editors, maybe some of them should be tagged for deletion, but I have not made any decisions about that yet. I do note that User:Citizenkane7 claimed above that DeCilio's notability was at least as corroborated, or better corroborated, than that of Kent Beyda, Bud Molin, Frank Morriss, Raja Gosnell, and Brian Berdan. But Molin was nominated for two Eddie Awards, Morriss was nominated for two Oscars and won Emmy and Eddie Awards, and Gosnell is a successful director who had had a Wikipedia article for over a year before any reference was made to his prior career as an editor. I don't see how the minimal sources provided in this article establish DeCilio as being more notable than these others. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Producing and editing films with directors of the caliber of Cutler (September Edition) and Gibney (Taxi to the Dark Side) is definitely notable, and is documented at imdb.com . The NYTimes citation (rare for editors) makes it a slam dunk, especially on a film by Brett Morgen, who made Chicago 10 and Kid Stays in the Picture. mecca51 ( talk ) 18:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Mecca51. The article needs a rewrite, but I think its clear from the evidence discussed above that DeCilio meets the GNG as a subject for an article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sourcing to establish notability is wafer thin. The sources that don't even mention her are clearly not relevant. This leaves a few mentions. Being associated with notable directors and producers do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She's not encyclopedically notable. She's not in the public eye, and this will never be a biography. It will be a relisting of IMDb, which is no more reliable than Wikipedia. She doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources, and she has not been recognized in her field of work. Lara 16:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:ENTERTAINER. Significant coverage in independent sources does not exist. NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: Neither Citizenkane7 / 71.249.6.101 or mecca51 have extensive histories in Wikipedia, however, they have edited the same articles a number of times: [4] vs. [5]. Socks or coincidence? Location (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diana_DeCilio&oldid=1074097338"