George Meehan (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)

None of the sources (other than Blottner) mention the subject in anything but credit lists. This does not constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Probably none of the references? Many sources mention the subject other than in the credit list! gidonb (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add those here. The only source used which has him in anything beyond a credits list is the Blottner source; but those comments are sparse and perfunctory and do not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Please provide evidence of sources with in-depth coverage. None of the materials address biographical content like dates of birth or death. An encyclopedia entry (if one can be found) would go a long way to proving notability for example. Even an obituary (as long as its not a paid for one) would be useful to help meet GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference. References are in the article. Sources are out there. This particular reference was removed by someone and just re-added by me. I saw maybe 10-20 sources that mention the cinematographer. He probably passes CREATIVE #2 for being extremely prolific. Texts often say something about the job he did. There is an anecdote in a book about a fellow cinematographer who he trained. There might be more in the newspapers. gidonb (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument which is listed as a discredited argument at AFD. You must produce specific sources here with specific details (preferably url links but offline sources with title, author, date, publisher, and page number work too), and not make vague unsubstantiated claims.4meter4 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not WP:SOURCESEXIST at all as I do not say that SIGCOV exists, only that I'll look further. That's anyone's prerogative. Please note that thus far I have only commented so all these frames are totally irrelevant. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD needs additional participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:CREATIVE does not require secondary biographical SIGCOV. What needs to be established is that he created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. I would say that a cinematographer plays a "major role" in the creation of a film, and as a prolific cinematographer who worked on a large number of significant films I think he clears that bar. I also would not be at all surprised if WP:GNG coverage exists and is just difficult to find, but I don't think it's necessary given that he passes WP:CREATIVE. MCE89 (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]