Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigi Causey

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Causey[edit]

Gigi Causey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Note – The above statement is the actual nomination for deletion, and not an !vote, as the formatting may suggest. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: to prevent the nomination from being mistakenly read by Wikipedia editors as an !vote. Nothing personal. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Academy Award nomination qualifies as having "won significant critical attention" (WP:FILMMAKER criteria #4). Restar32 (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a mere nomination? That is a long bow to draw. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A win for a minor Oscar would be pretty borderline, but a nomination? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being nominated for an Academy Award is notable and no doubt would have coverage in the press about such a nomination. Lugnuts (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO.[1] While an argument might be made that the awards were for her film, we then look to WP:FILMMAKER and see that coverage, commentary and review of her work[2][3][4] has her meeting that criteria as well. We improve stub articles on notables, not delete them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Come on. She doesn't qualify under BIO or FILMMAKER. All but two of the links you've cited just mention her name, nothing more; one is a link to IMDb (which is worthless for Afd purposes) and the other is a trivial dispute about a permit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs) 11:33, 27 January 2012‎
      • While the GNG is the easiest way to determine notablity, guideline offers that it is not the only way. We have verifiability of WP:CREATIVE#3 in that "The person has created... a significant or well-known work... that has been the subject of... multiple independent reviews." Seaches show that her multi-award winning film has received the neccessary commentary and review. Guideline does not demand that a significant work must have the coverage of Star Wars or Harry Potter in order for WP:Creative to be met. And as her work has received the coverage to be determined as notable, she is herself per guideline verifiable as notable. And searches show both her award and her film's coverage as verifiable away from IMDB. Or is it somehow being contended that her film did not recieve commentary or review or awards or that she did not receive the further recognition of a major nomination? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is an 11 minute comedy short a "significant or well-known work"? That's debatable. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if we say the 11-minute comedy short is absolutely and unquestionably notable (and even that's a strech), she produced it rather than directed it, so I don't think notability can be inherited from that alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here is substantial coverage from the Los Angeles Times. I do note, however, that most of the coverage I'm seeing is about Causey and her husband and co-nominee Andrew Bowler. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an excellent source for Time Freak, but the only thing it says about Gigi Causey herself is that her husband has to trick her into watching sci-fi on TV. Not exactly a solid foundation for a BLP article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Signifcant does not depend upon world-wide box ofice receipts, but rather upon a work receiving comentary and coverage in multiple reliable sources, nor is notability dependent upon the length of the work being so covered... and such will remain as the yardstick by which we measure notability and significance until WP:N is re-rewritten. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Topic just meets WP:GNG. The first article listed below constitutes significant coverage, in which Causey herself is mentioned numerous times. The second article is very short. Hence, weak keep !vote for now until more reliable sources that address the person significantly can be found.
  • Rome, Emily (January 28, 2012). "'Time Freak': Sci-fi short and an Oscar moment to remember". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 03, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • "UT grad goes crazy when her short film gets an Oscar nom". The Houston Chronicle. Retrieved February 03, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
— Northamerica1000(talk) 06:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Academy awards are one of the very few awards for which even a nomination amounts to notability, in part because of the extensive press coverage in this industry, DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks significant independent coverage, as for DGG's point that even a nomination amounts to notability, if that is true then sources should not be so hard to find, in this case the fact they seam to be, indicates that perhaps it is not a fool proof guide. WP needs significant independent coverage not only to demonstrate notability but also to ensure that a good, well sourced and verifiable article can be composed. Mtking (edits) 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Guess what!! Its a borderline case! Let's not pretend otherwise; that's why we have differing opinions here. Unless its true that an Oscar nomination is sufficient by itself, perhaps I'll root around for some prior AfDs to see how we've treated that in the past.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I removed all the bad wikilinks that linked to something unrelated to this person. They meet WP:ARTIST, which covers filmmakers, among others. 4c The person's work (c) has won significant critical attention. Time Freak got nominated for an academy award, ample news coverage from that. A significant amount of critical attention, surely. Dream Focus 08:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has inline citations from The Los Angeles Times, The Houston Chronicle and BBC News, all reliable and independent sources. She has a nomination for an Oscar, and other earlier awards. It seems to me that readers will want to know about Oscar nominees, whether they go on to win an Oscar or not. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gigi_Causey&oldid=1137878838"