Talk:David Blackburn (film editor)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --2600:1012:B022:8B6C:1D5D:ACEB:BAF3:E43E (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I read the page you cite and this article does not fall under any one of these three categories: "There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia. These are: advertisements masquerading as articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced."

1) This is in no way an advertisement. No solicitation is made. No rates are promoted. Direct contact information is not given. (Three websites are given in references as corroboration of information in the article only.) There is no aspect of hype in the description, ie. "David is the fastest, best, etc. ..."

2) There is absolutely NO external link spamming whatsoever. IMDb is a respected professional resource for the film industry. The other two links are professional presences presenting David's award-winning work on the projects noted in the article along with more information for those who would seek it.

3) The references as stated previously were not added with an aim to promote, only to corroborate the information in the article and to provide a source for additional information. The references in this article are no different than the references in the article for Britney Spears to whose body of work David has contributed three times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears - In references Britney's article lists an Official Website, and several links to professional resources, including IMDb (same as David).

Granted the article on David is a bit on the spare side. But I just created it and intend to enhance it and anticipate others will contribute to fleshing it out as well. David has a decades-long and frequently lauded career working with many, many noted celebrities both in front of the camera and behind. He has helped create a great number of culturally iconic film projects and has been recognized for his excellence with press, awards and nominations.

I will go through the article now in an effort to make the language even more factual and less "promotional" to appease you.

If this explanation and the examples I have given do not satisfy you then please explain to me who any one of the three conditions of spam is met here and/or how David's references are more inadequate or inappropriate than Britney's.

Thank You, Brad

@Braddp186k: - KDS4444 (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC) please understand this: whatever may appear on Britney's page doesn't have bearing on the relevance or notability of Mr. Blackburn's article (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). In order for this or any article to be retained it must stand on its own grounds. Also, although many consider IMDb to be a valid, professional source of information, the fact remains that its contents are not generate by a paid staff with editorial oversight— this means it is not considered a WP:RELIABLE source of information nor is it a valid measure of real world notability.

Let me review the references in the article as it stands right now. The first reference to the MVPA award is a likely indicator of notability because it appears to be a genuinely competitive award of national scope (the version of the article that I nominated for deletion did not have this reference in it). The second "reference" is to a Youtube video— not reliable or independent, and not really a "source", more of an external link (see WP:YOUTUBE). The third is a link to a review to a movie— it does not discuss Mr. Blackburn at all, and only mentions his name in passing (see WP:TRIVIAL). The fourth is another mention in passing, with no discussion of Mr Blackburn. The fifth reference does not mention his name. The sixth is yet another mention in passing with no discussion of Mr. Blackburn. The seventh is a link to a Vimeo video, which is not considered a measure of notability.

So as it stands, the only real evidence of Mr. Blackburn's notability as demonstrated in the article as it stands right now is his award for Best Editor for the 2005 MVPAs, and even that piece of evidence contains no information about him other than the mention of his name. I hope you can see where I am going here, and encourage you to have another look at this article to see if you can find sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria for measuring notability. That you have created an article for others to flesh out later is not a valid reason for retaining it— it needs to stand or not stand on the evidence you (or others) can collect and show to the world as evidence of notability here and now, not for some theoretical future date.

I feel like I am coming on too strong now, and I probably need to back off. Please do not take my nomination for deletion as anything personal— I did not make the nomination casually, I made it because the article didn't look like it could stand on its own. I am still not entirely sure it does so even now. But at this point we should probably take this conversation to my (or your) talk page, yes? In the mean time, this article still remains at risk for a deletion nomination, either from me or from any other editor. If you would like to ensure its retention, I would be glad to see if I can help you! KDS4444 (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Another more-thorough look at the MPVA awards suggests that they themselves might not really be notable... Without this, the article on Mr. Blackburn is in even more serious doubt. KDS4444 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello -

Your reasoning absolutely confounds me. MVPA stands for the Music Video Producer's Association. Respectfully, I think you are not the appropriate person to be judging this article as you seem to be entirely unfamiliar with the industry.

So I will walk you through some points.

First, have a look at the membership of MVPA. Here is the Agency page: http://mvpa.com/Agencies Among the membership are the premier, top-tier agencies: Dattner-Dispoto And Associates, Innovative Artists, The Mack Agency, The Mirisch Agency, Paradigm and The Skouras Agency.

Now have a look at the production company page: http://mvpa.com/Production%20Companies Here you will find some of the very most preeminent music video and commercial production companies like: A Common Thread, Anonymous Content, Believe Media, Black Dog Films (Ridley Scott's company), DNA and Draw Pictures just to name a few.

Look next at the patron members: http://mvpa.com/Patron%20Members These include legendary companies whose names even you should recognize: Eastman Kodak, NBC Universal, Panavision, Paramount Studio Group, Sony Pictures Studios.

The board of directors is a who's who of the music video production industry: http://mvpa.jettmg.com/board

Here is a list of MVPA Award winners from 2013: http://www.videostatic.com/news/2013/05/31/dir If you do not recognize the names of these luminaries of the industry then you really should not be evaluating David Blackburn's profile entry. If you DO recognize these names then I really shouldn't have to go on. But you are being very intransigent, so I will.

2003 MVPA Award winners published in the prestigious music industry trade Billboard: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/71136/2003-mvpa-award-winners

Now the 2006 Award Winners from Creative Planet: http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/news/news-articles/mvpa-announces-2006-award-winners/413618 If you do not recognize these directors, producers and behind-the-camera talent then pay attention to the names of the artists these videos are for.

Given all that I fail to see how you can demean this organization or their awards in any way. For many years they have been the second most prestigious music video awards, only behind the MTV Video Music Awards. In fact it might be argued that the MVPAs are even more prestigious because they are awarded by the peers of people working in the music video production industry.

Moving on from your aspersions on the integrity of the MVPA Awards I want to illuminate something for you about the articles David is mentioned in which you handily dismiss.

Do you realize what a tiny, tiny fraction of the people working in the film industry are talented, respected and in-demand enough to work with people like Britney Spears? David worked with her THREE TIMES! The fact that he is hired to edit time and again for the artists named in this article, like Eminem, Gwen Stefani, Will Smith and Katy Perry should already tell you that he is among the most elite editors working in the business.

That David is trusted by directors the caliber of Joseph Kahn and Chris Robinson to cut their jobs repeatedly speaks to David's extraordinary abilities. These are directors who have the cache and the money to be able to hire ANY EDITOR. They choose David. Time and again. If that does not testify to him being extraordinary and notable then I don't know what does.

David has cut major theatrical feature films for Warner Brothers and is currently cutting one for Paramount. Two of David's features have screened in the most prestigious festivals in the world: The Sundance Film Festival and SXSW.

Not one of these things is ordinary or mundane or a thing achieved by a neophyte or average filmmaker. For your convenience each of these entities is hyperlinked within David's Wikipedia entry. You can see for yourself who Joseph Kahn and Chris Robinson are and why their choice of an editor would demonstrate that person to be very special. You can read up about Sundance and SXSW and discover that it is very challenging to be part of a film which is accepted to those festivals.

If David had only done one of these things I might be able to concede your gripe. But that he has worked in the field for decades and is repeatedly trusted to cut projects for major artists, brands and studios attests to the fact that he is indeed one of the very, very few inner circle of filmmakers working on the most iconic projects driving popular culture in America and the world.

These are the reasons your tenacity in challenging this article is beyond comprehension to me.

Respectfully, Brad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braddp186k (talk • contribs) 13:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Brad, your insinuations about my motivations aside, you have not addressed any of the points I mentioned above. If Mr. Blackburn is as well known as he is, then there should be ample evidence of this in reliable published sources. That is all that matters— not what I think, not what you think, but what sources think (and say). Somehow I haven't gotten across to you that the subject of the article doesn't appear to have adequate sources to qualify as notable, and that, above all else, is the problem here. It is also important that, if you know Mr. Blackburn personally, that you disclose your conflict of interest on your userpage. You can see WP:COI for more information about conflict of interest concerns, and you are welcome to ask me for more information on what to do if you have one.

I am sorry if what I have written above confounds you— I have tried to write it out so that you could follow my concerns and respond to them. It seems instead you have made a personal argument for the article's inclusion, and that (which it may all be true) has no bearing here. Unless the sourcing issue can be addressed, the article is at risk for deletion. You seem to know Mr. Blackburn better than I do— can you find the right kind of sources to support a notability claim?? If you can, then please by all means add them! And if you are at all unsure, please ask if you need assistance with determining what sources would work and which would not. I am not here to antagonize you or to target this article, I am here to try to figure out whether or not it belongs on Wikipedia, nothing more, and so far I am not entirely convinced. But I am open to being convinced! Can you convince me?? (And do you have a COI that needs addressing?) KDS4444 (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)