Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Gross


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Jamie Gross

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, United States of America,  and Pennsylvania. UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Hits on several people with this name, nothing for this person. Does not appear to have won any awards, only worked on B-movies. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets criterion#3 for creative professionals; her contributions to notable films are verifiable, here or here, for example. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  13:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Needs some modicum of significant coverage to establish that she "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." She has credits as an editor, but I don't think we can say that's a "major role" in "co-creation" when there's no depth of sourcing. These are feature films, but don't have the significance that anyone who worked on them is notable per criterion 3 to the detriment of WP:BASIC/GNG, as this is "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources". Reywas92Talk 00:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per ; well put. Criterion 3 for WP:NCREATIVE requires verifiability that they played a major role in the creation; having edited the film is not at all a pass without sourcing to indicate the editing significantly contributed to the final product's makeup. Said sourcing doesn't exist, nor any sourcing discussing Jamie specifically. — Sirdog (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I am sorry but the guideline says this: "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, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);" Sources show she was editor for various film/TV works that received such coverage. In-depth/specific sources on her are therefore NOT needed; that is precisely why this criterion exists. And if editing is not a major part of a film, well, then, what is?- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  20:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Editing is an important part of filmmaking, but I would not call the editor a film's co-creator, same for the cinematographer or even producers; that's more the director or some writers. This criterion does not exist to say it's okay to have articles with zero substantive coverage. If this was really such a "major" role, I would expect discussion of that role, not just credits listings without context. Furthermore, I wouldn't call any of these films "significant" or particularly well-known. Reywas92Talk 23:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm once again beaten by, who has stated what I intended to. For clarity on the particulars of policy that I believe we are leaning on, Notability states "... topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found" and Notability (people) states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Emphasis for both added by me. — Sirdog (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I think since the film reviews do not mention praise/criticize the editing, the editor is not notable., , and . Furthermore, while these films could have been edited by the same person, they could have been edited by two+ different people with the same name and such research is original research. DareshMohan (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2023 (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.