Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Uegama

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Uegama

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP of a cinematographer, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for cinematographers.
The only notability claim being attempted here is that his work exists, which isn't enough in and of itself -- the notability test for a cinematographer doesn't vest in listing his film and television credits, it vests in showing third-party reliable source media coverage externally validating the significance of his work: coverage about him, evidence that he has won or been nominated for major awards for his work, and on and so forth.
But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, like his IMDb profile and the self-published website of his own employer, with the closest thing to a reliable source being a specialty trade magazine that just links to his name being present on the cover without showing any evidence that he was the subject of any written content inside the magazine — and even if somebody can verify better than I've been able to that he was the subject of an actual article, it would still take more than just one source to get him over WP:GNG anyway.
And even on his IMDb profile, the only awards listed there are regional (Leo) or specialty (Canadian Society of Cinematographers) awards that would be fine to add here if the article were sourced properly, but are not prominent enough to hand him an instant notability freebie without proper sourcing.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just not enough coverage for this individual. Semi-RS, a repost from Mashable via CBS News [1] and that's the best one I could find .I don't see notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2024 (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.