Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Fleiss

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesse Fleiss

Note - Arguments in this AFD are being used to propose changes in WP:Creative and WP:NOTINHERITED here and here. PPdd (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Also here - Proposed_addition_to_clarify_definition_of_.22co-creator.22_in_WP:CREATIVE. PPdd (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesse Fleiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

‪Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability‬ camera operator for multiple hit reality television shows????? Theroadislong (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly passes WP:CREATIVE - "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

• This should not deteriorate into a discussion of the merits of reality television as an art form, or a comparison of its camera work to the camera work in what editors consider to be great works of art. This is a discussion of the application of the language of WP:CREATIVE, and notability, not quality, of significant participants in co-creation of a hit reality series that appears in multiple periodicals on a regular basis, for better or for worse.
• A sufficient criteria for notability is significant coverage OF THE BODY OF WORK created by a co-creator, which does NOT require ANY coverage at all of the co-creator himself.
• A cinematographer is clearly a co-creator of any cinematographic work. The cinematographer of a reality television show is often even more important as a “co-creator” than in most works of scripted cinema. This is because of at least two reasons.

1. The split second decision of a reality television camera operator to cover some unscripted event in reality when it interacts with the show in an unscripted way, is what drives ratings through the ceiling and causes coverage of the body of work, even though not directly coverage of the co-creators. The camera operator operates without direction to try to film something unscripted and undirected, and is an essential co-creator even more than in most other forms of film. The camera operator in reality television may be the most important of all of the works co-creators in getting significant coverage of the work.

2. Unlike scripted film work, the reality television work would be entirely different with a different camera operator, making the camera operator possibly the most important co-creators in the entire crew of co-creators. The STYLE in which a particular camera operator follows “reality” around on reality television is a distinctive feature by which a reality television show can be immediately recognized just by the camera work style, even with unknown characters. This is unlike in almost any other filming on television. This makes the camera operator more essential as a co-creator than in almost any other form of cinema.

• It is indisputable that the body of work, The Bachelor, has been the subject of “multiple independent periodical articles or reviews”, producing producing hundreds of thousands of different news stories in a Google news archive search alone.
• Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals says notability IS Inherited by a co-creator of a notable work or body of work - "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
• Independently of the above sufficient argument to keep, keeping and growing this article certainly improves Wikipedia since an encyclopedia user who wants to know about notable reality television camera operators would certainly want to know about those whose work is historic, whether or not it is deserved by its quality as art.PPdd (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals, which says "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The cinematographer in any film production "played a major role" in the artistic creation, and especially so in a reality television show where the split second decisions and reactions of a cameraman reacting to events in reality that are not predicted is essential to the creation of the work, which is admittedly a work made solely to increase ratings and with little or no artistic value. Certainly The Bachelor a historic reality television show, is a "well-known work... that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", although I did not provide sources for this indisputable fact. PPdd (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

But Fleiss has NOT been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. A cinematographer is generally equivalent to the director of photography do you have a reference for either of these with regard to Fleiss? Or indeed ANY references at all for Fleiss? On his own website he describes himself as a camera operator or camera assistant. I'm really struggling to find any notability at all.Theroadislong (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

1. The criteria is NOT that Fleiss is "the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", but that the body of work is "the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews".

1. I have not read Fleiss' own website, since it is not RS. Theroadislong, you are likely having trouble finding notability because Fleiss is a hack camera operator who is notable in his field only because he makes split second camera decisions that drive ratings throught the ceiling, but produce art so dumb and of such porr artistic quality that a Wikipedia editor would likely never watch it to the end. But quality of the work product is not the criteria for notability, the coverage of the work product is. Without Fleiss, those reality television shows he shot would be entirely different, since they evolve not just from a plot, but from a hoped for interaction with unpredicgted reality, at which point the audience for some reason watches even more. PPdd (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The body of work already has it's own articles though?Theroadislong (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. The co-creator of a body of work is notable under WP:Creative if the body of work is notable. A branch of physics may have its own article, but a co-creator of it would get an independent article, with personal information included in the person's article that is not in the body of work article. The WP:Creative guideline seems as clearly worded as it can be, and I am mystified about the existence of the delete votes on this page, or the existence of an AFD at all, just minutes after I created the article. Theroadis long, since yo seem to be the only editor on this page that appears to be even trying at all to read the WP:Creative language, which seems completely clear to me, I ask that you read it carefully and reconsider your vote. PPdd (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Only if you ignore the basic criteria for notability. By your definition every literary editor who has worked on one or two notable books should have their own article for this, even though there are zero sources that discuss that person. A person whose work (in Mr Fleiss' case that would be a source that discusses the camerawork of Mr Fleiss and names him, not the series as a whole) hasn't been discussed in reliable sources isn't notable (as a subject for a Wikipedia article). 84.177.60.236 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Notability is not inherited. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply- Notability IS inherited by the creator of a notable artistic work, per the above quoted language. PPdd (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to understand how this works. Find reliable sources that discuss Fleiss and add them to the article; that is what demonstrates his notability. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails to establish notability. A camera operator/technical supervisor is hardly a person that plays "... a major role in co-creating" the TV programs cited. Much in the way a printer of a book, unless other factors came into play, would not fit the criteria cited. reddogsix (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply - Saying cinematography in a film production is not part of the creative process, just as a printer of a book is not part of the writing process, is disingenous at best. Note that since December 17, almost the only contributions to WP by Reddogsix have been attempts to delete articles I write. No wonder so many new editors quit almost immediately upon coming to Wikipedia. Imagine the likelihood of a new editor writing about cinematography being told by Reddogsix that cinematography is no more an art than the printer of a book, and having their article deleted, ever trying to contribute again. PPdd (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Your attempt at discrediting my comment does not change the fact that notabilty has not been established for this individual.(disingenous, really?)

A camera operator in TV production is not a cinematographer. In TV production a camera operator is just that - an operator - and generally does what the director, AD, DP, or blocker has told him/her to do. I can't imagine telling anyone that cinematography is not an art, far from it. Hence the Oscars, GG, Bafta awards for such; however, I have never seen an award for the best camera operator in a TV show. How can you say a printer is part of the creative writing process? A printer does not contribute to the writer's thoughts, they only present the text to a broad audience - I would suspect that would be hardly creative from a writer's perspective. Feel free to discredit my comments related to the article. Shall we focus on the issue at hand, the notability of the individual? My best to you...reddogsix (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Re your comment: "I have never seen an award for the best camera operator in a TV show." One such is called Emmy Award. A camera operator in a reality TV show is a cinematographer, and makes the sponteneous decisions of what to film. PPdd (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I will concede the Emmy for camera work; however, I do not believe the individual meets the criteria for inclusion. We obviously disagree, good luck with the AfD. Again, my best to you. reddogsix (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Then what is your basis for your delete vote, if you now agree that camera work is part of the artistic process, and the language of the notability criteria is so clear? PPdd (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, "Fails to establish notability. A camera operator/technical supervisor is hardly a person that plays "... a major role in co-creating" the TV programs cited." reddogsix (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: It's a pretty tortured reading of WP:CREATIVE to claim that every camera operator on a reality TV show is notable and deserves a biography. This biography is well below any reasonable interpretation of this site's threshold for inclusion. Neither here nor there, perhaps, but this seems to coincide with an effort by PPdd (talk · contribs) to turn our article on Paul M. Fleiss in a very promotional, non-encyclopedic direction. MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply - I did not say "every camera operator on a reality TV show is notable". Your argument is a straw man. Why did you write that? I said that the camera operator for The Bachelor is notable, since the show is so notable and using the quoted notability criteria. PPdd (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is notable solely for being the camera operator on a reality show, no matter how popular that show, in the absence of any other evidence of notability. I think that's a totally unreasonable standard for notability, and a complete misapplication of WP:CREATIVE. MastCell ^Talk 07:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You would not think it was a misapplication of WP:CREATIVE if you were a camera operator or student studying camera operators and wanting to access an encycopedia article on others in your own creative field. That is the whole purpose of a BIO. The purpose is not for a handful of editors to decide what fields are important to "artistic creation" or not. (I am having to bite my knuckles in calling a reality tv show "creative" or "artistic", but this is not about our own personal aesthetics). PPdd (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would help if you slow down your posting volume, dial down the rhetoric, and listen to what people are saying here. I'm not judging anyone's creativity or professional worth, so please don't cast the discussion in those ridiculous terms. WP:CREATIVE is not a final judgment on which people and professions are "creative"; it's just a guideline this particular website has agreed upon to focus its content.

Wikipedia isn't a professional networking site for camera operators, or for anyone else for that matter. I suspect that camera operators are able to use the Internet to connect socially and professionally already, and I don't see how a single biography of a non-notable camera operator furthers that goal. MastCell ^Talk 20:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Jakew (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

here.PPdd (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The significant coverage needs to be about the subject of the article, so that a properly-sourced article can be written. Jakew (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the significant coverage does not need to be about the subject of the article. A person is notable if they are not covered, but they are a co-creator of a "body of work, that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." It is sufficient that that body of work is covered. It is not necessary that the person themselves is covered. That is the reason for the language of WP:CREATIVE. Please reconsider your vote. PPdd (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Please go to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which explains that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" (emph added.) The following section is entitled "Additional criteria", and a subsection of this is "Creative professionals" (or WP:CREATIVE). Note that these are additional criteria. Further down that page you will find a section labelled "Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria", which clearly indicates that a standalone article is not an option. Jakew (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Notability has not been established. PPdd is only citing the additional requirements of WP:CREATIVE, the general requirements clearly state there needs to be considerable coverage of the person in reliable sources (and that is assuming that the cameraman is a co-creator rather than someone working for the creator and thus passes those additional requirements). 84.177.60.236 (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete The argument for keep make perfect sense, as follows: The Bachelor = Citizen Kane & Guy with battery pack around waist = cinematographer => Jesse Fleiss = Gregg Toland. Right. EEng (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This completely invalid straw man argument is in no way helpful. It demonstrates a need to clarify WP:CREATIVE for some editors. PPdd (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Fleiss was one of 54 camera operators on "The Batchelor" see here [1] Theroadislong (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, and only in 7 episodes, some of which he was credited just as "assistant camera". Cavarrone (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The last two comments by Theroadislong and Caverrone are the only valid arguments to delete on this page. They demonstrate that WP:CREATIVE fails on the "co-creator" criterion, there being so many other camera persons, and so few shows worked on. I would not have started the article in the first place if I had known the two facts pointed out by Theroadislong and Caverrone.I have never seen The Bachelor, but I recognize some reality television shows that my mother watched simply by vitue of a special and distinctive camera style, especially on some reality crime shows, which is essential to to the reality feel of the show, thus the camara operator is a significant part of the product created in those cases. I changed my vote to delete because of Theroadislong's finding that Fleiss is not reasonably considered to be a cocreator of the body of work because of his minimal participation. The other delete arguments on this page indicate a clarification is needed in WP:CREATIVE, which I am proposing here. PPdd (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but one of them was the time that Billy looked like he was about to give the rose to Jeanette but then at the last second gave it to Rochelle, and Jeanette burst into tears! Luckily the artistic Jesse Fleiss was manning the camera and caught every salty drop! What artistry! EEng (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguing ad hominum by sarcasm "the artistic Jesse Fleiss" is a waste of AFD page space and editor attention, and exhibits an overall misnunderstanding that WP:CREATIVE does not require a co-creator to have created something valued by editors. PPdd (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of over all, over all the other text of WP:CREATIVE is this: This page...is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. (I underlined the words common sense to make them stand out for you.) The waste of editor attention has been your insistence on Fleiss' notability in the face of universal opposition. EEng (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC) P.S. It's spelled ad hominem, and you might want to check out what it really means before attempting to use it again. (But you do need to find out precisely what it means, too. My argument would only have been a.h. if I'd used an attack on you as a rebuttal to your arguments. Any disparagement of Fleiss would have been I-don't-know-what-in-Latin, but not a.h. in the rhetorical sense.) EEng (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a spell check funcion on the WP edit screen, or do I have to always cut and paste from a word processor like WORD? PPdd (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no spellcheck function on WP that I know of, but don't worry -- I only take off points for spelling when I'm in an especially mean mood. Look, I'm sorry I gave you such a hard time, but I do think you weren't applying common sense here. Perhaps things will go more calmly when we meet again. EEng (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I like meanness in editors. Regarding the ad hominum (sic) fallacy in reasoning, "An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument." Sarcastically calling him "the artistic Jesse Fleiss" has nothing to do with anything, since being artistic is irrelevant to the argument for notability, being a co-creator and the work itself having substantial secondary source coverage. If the show had only one cameraman and that work was a large factor in causing it to be a commercial success (which I incorrectly had thought when I first started this article), then they are notable by the notability of their co-creation, not by its being artistic. The only time I ever noticed a reality television show in the background was when I saw a unique camera style that seemed to give the show its character, especially in reality shows on cops which were sometimes "gritty" and thereby successful, and sometimes indistinct and thus a commercial failure. This is solely by virtue of the camerawork. I also saw grocery check-out coverage of when a cameraman caught some bit of reality that was not scripted, which caused the secondary source coverage. In these cases the camera operator would be notable if they were the main or only one in the body of work. And speaking of spell chekcers, does EEng mean you are an Earonautical Engnineer? PPdd (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Community Service Announcement There's not been a single "keep" sentiment expressed except by PPdd. If an editor has a new "keep" rationale, by all means please post it here. Those who are inclined to argue delete, don't waste your time -- barring a new keep rationale, the outcome is clear. EEng (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Changing vote to delete per Theroadislong's last comment. (Other arguments to delete because editors argue that reality television is not "artistic enough" to be notable are invalid, given the "co-creator" and multiply reviewed "body of work" wording of WP:CREATIVE, which does not require the creation to be art at all. However, I ask that this discussion be kept up for a while longer since it is being referred to here for a proposed clarification of WP:CREATIVE. PPdd (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2012 (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.