Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beverly Camhe

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Camhe

Beverly Camhe (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)

Non-notable producer. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BLP. References are stonkingly bad. Terrible, absolutely terrible. scope_creep^Talk 09:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Weak keep As the article already states but fails to source properly, Camhe has produced Junior,^[1] In God We Trust,^[2] The Celestine Prophecy, ^[3] The Believers,^[4] and The Package. ^[5] She has been described as a "veteran cable-movie producer"/"veteran producer" by The Spokesman^[6] and Variety.^[7] Perhaps Camhe's credits make her borderline notable per #3 in WP:PRODUCER: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Mooonswimmer 14:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment The sourcing is problematic for this editor. It could indeed be notable with a bit of work. See what other folk think. scope_creep^Talk 15:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep Again, I have added references to other articles that had few or no references in the past in order to help improve them. I have also submitted a handful of pages the past 6 years and included the references I found while thinking other editors would contribute and improve those articles. The pages I have submitted seem more notable than many existing pages. Attacking the sourcing as a reason to delete seems arbitrary and almost like a vendetta because it is a page I wrote... Stravensky (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stravensky: How goes it? No, that is how its done at Afd. You examine the sources in the article, to see if they follow the criteria of the notability, in this case WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. We will take a look at them tommorrow and see what they say. scope_creep^Talk 23:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a page, it is an article. Completely different things. The most problematic of the articles you wrote were listed at the WP:COI noticeboard. I checked them and sent all the ones I thought were non-notable to Afd. scope_creep^Talk 23:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Mooonswimmer: Is there good reviews of her work? She may well be notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, plenty of reviews covering the films. Note that they aren't really her works but rather works you could argue she played a significant role in creating as a producer, which would make her notable per WP:PRODUCER. Also worth noting that she is credited as "executive producer" on Junior and In God::: We Trust. Mooonswimmer 17:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, I thought it might be something else. I don't think that is enough. Its very slim and the coverage is very poor. scope_creep^Talk 17:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of what, her role in the inception of the films? Mooonswimmer 17:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Producers don't really do well on Wikipedia unless they have some kind of external notability to the work they do, that can pass WP:SIGCOV. Generally the artcles are deleted unless really wide coverage. Looking at this, for example [1], this wouldn't be significant. It is not a good ref to prove notabilty. It is really just a passing mention at best. I'll look at these ref and the first block tommorrow. scope_creep^Talk 18:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the reference isn't an example of significant coverage. All the articles I provided are simply to source the fact that she was a producer on those films.

My understanding of WP:PRODUCER is that the subject (producer, DoP, composer) is notable if they've created or played a major role in making a notable film. The film itself is what should be covered in multiple independent sources. Camhe is credited as an executive producer on a few of the films, and it's true that it's not exactly a creative role, hence my "Weak" keep vote.

In terms of significant coverage on Camhe herself or works she was the principal creator of, I haven't really found much coverage. Lots of passing mentions but nothing significant. Mooonswimmer 01:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, As per WP:BIO, the subject needs to be standalone notable. Here the subject fails all of the three criteria defined in WP:BIO which I always knew. scope_creep^Talk 09:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Moonswimmer. She meets WP:PRODUCER.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No she doesn't. There is isn't even a decent interview nevermind a WP:SECONDARY source. scope_creep^Talk 18:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I reply "Oh but yes she does', we can go on forever, can't we? Just read the guideline. No further comment. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What guideline exacly? scope_creep^Talk 09:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lets examine the sources:

Ref 1 IMDB is non-rs in this instance.

Ref 2 [2] This is own blog. It is WP:SPIP source.

Ref 3 [3] Mentions she is the producer. Passing mention.

Ref 4 [4] Database generated profile showing the the films that Camhe has produced. Its not independent nor significant.

Ref 5 [5] Passing mention as exec producer.

Ref 6 [6] Behind a firewall.

Ref 7 [7] writer and producer Beverly Camhe, passing mention.

Ref 8 [8] Passing mention.

Per WP:BLP, it states Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources None of the these high-quality sources. Most of them are passing mentions. WP:BIO has three criteria , this subject fails all of them. It doesn't even meet WP:THREE. scope_creep^Talk 18:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - She does not meet WP:GNG as there is absolutely no significant coverage I can find that would be usable on Wikipedia outside of a page that lists her credits. There are passing mentions and credits which show she was part of the films so I evaluated based on WP:NPRODUCER. Note that just producing a film does not mean someone meets this guideline. The page says she "produced" the film Junior, when in fact she was one of several executive producers for a film that was actually "produced" by Ivan Reitman as shown in this reference. She was listed as a producer for the Celestine Prophecy as shown in this reference, which makes her one of five producers for the film. Producers take many forms and do not always play a "major role." Absent a reference saying that she did play a major role in the films listed on the page, she would fail notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though she is in the production team as opposed to actually leading the production team and not senior enough to get the producer credit, which may have helped. I think pretty its clear now that she is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to delete. Mooonswimmer 12:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my vote to delete considering the fact that on most of the films, she was one of multiple producers, and that she is credited as "executive" producer, which is less of a creative role. Mooonswimmer 12:25, 31 October 2023 (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.