Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana DeCilio

Diana DeCilio

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)

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)

• Well - on that basis, you could claim notability for every important staff member who has worked on multiple award winning features. See WP:NOTINHERITED. To pass WP:BIO, DiCilio needs to have independent coverage of her and her work. Black Kite 22:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Delete - insufficient sources to establish notability at this time. Mere film credit doesn't establish notability. Studerby (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)