Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jen Gatien

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Gatien

Appears to fail the notability guidelines for creative professionals as laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (people). SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claims to notability. Possible A7 candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the film won no awards (well, it could win some annual awards, but it did not win Sundance, which was probably its best shot). Article actually fails to mention the most interesting thing about her, which is her father -- which isn't a claim to notability in any case. --Dhartung | Talk 20:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec #2 today!) I'm torn. The movie she's produced, Hounddog, has generated a lot of buzz - but she herself gets minimal coverage along with it, and is one of three producers on the project. Maybe, if she wins an award for it, she'll be notable enough, but right now delete as failing WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, unless she gets more coverage for Hounddog, her only notable film to date. There's a side story about her being the daughter of Peter Gatien, whose nightclub was featured prominently in the story behind the film Party Monster, but that doesn't exactly denote notability on her part, either.--Sethacus 20:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This has to be our most kludged together policy. Significant part of creating/co-creating a notable work, and multiple reviews. Hounddog qualifies as notable, and [1] articles indicate she was the one who arranged most of the emergency funding to allow it's completion. She was also producer of Shampoo horns which seems borderline. Big issue is that producers don't really have a commonly agreed upon job description, so it's not a good idea to assign them significant part status automatically. I'm leaning towards week keep.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorshowj (talk • contribs)
Comment Deerjen (talk · contribs), who is apparently the subject (same name as production company), has contacted editors including me on their talk pages, saying that "more interesting" bits have been added to the article. Deerjen, my comment above was offhand, not a suggestion of what the article needed to be kept, and I'm sorry if it appeared otherwise. What the article needs is to satisfy our policy on biographical notability, meaning multiple independent sources at least some of which deal with the subject substantively. At this point I can find several articles about the film that mention you, but only in passing, mostly recounting the same two points about the emergency funding and the underwear controversy. My judgement is that this falls short of our guideline. Although we wish you well, this does not at this time justify an article in our encyclopedia.--Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I, too, was one of the editors contacted by the subject. Let me qualify my vote. I voted to delete without prejudice of recreation for a few reasons. Ms. Gatien is one of three producers on the film. However, like my fellow editors, I saw nothing substantial, source-wise, per our policy, to indicate notability, even with such a prestigious film under her belt. I am not opposed to recreation as it appears as though Ms. Gatien will, in the future, produce more films with notable talent, as well as make her directorial debut, which may, if I may be so bold and special as to look into my crystal ball, denote notability in the future. And, as I said before, the addition of the information about her father does not denote notability, either.--Sethacus 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per Horrorshowj, because the policy does not say what to do with movie producers. Bearian 21:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. If there were multiple third-party articles written about her, then perhaps a keep would be warranted. Fairsing 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, also fails WP:BLP with lack of any sort of reliable sources. Burntsauce 22:33, 27 July 2007 (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.