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 no consensus. The reasoning and logic of the delete !votes are enough not to call this a keep, but there are sources that probably meet our low thresholds for inclusion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Quintana[edit]

Brian Quintana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable figure. The original article read like a piece of promotional fluff for Mr. Quintana. While I have attempted to improve the article by providing sources, I now feel this person is at best of marginal notability. The results of a search on Google News has the most probable piece of news about Mr. Quintana being his getting a restraining order against Paris Hilton forbidding her from coming close to him - see here for a MTV News article about that. That's not in the article as it's of marginal value. Beyond that, the most substantial news article about Brian is a story which ran in the Los Angeles Times in March of this year (found here) which paints Mr. Quitana in a most unflattering light by pointing out his litiguousness and his habit of name-dropping others. He has twice stood for political office (specifically ), he lost one time and withdrew the second, so he doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:BIO regarding political figures is of no assistance there. He has mentioned as a producer of a movie ("Superman: The Man of Steel" - see here for one example), but the film in question is nowhere near production stage according to IMDB (see here for the IMDB entry).

In short, nothing which renders him notable. Tabercil (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "best known for his celebrity contacts"? Ouch. Claims to notabilty seem to be: he worked for famous people, and he lost an election. Seems like a good delete [see below] candidate. His IMDB page shows only a thank you in one film, no actual films produced. If he is noteworthy, the article needs to have all the exaggeration and POV cut out of it. Hairhorn (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I read an early version of the article and I'm (happily) not up to date on celebrity lawsuits. He does seem to be notable, but only as a litigant. So weak keep. But the article as written is still nonesense. I don't see any evidence he's even a "Hollywood film producer": working for another producer doesn't make you a producer, and the press coverage I've since seen refers to him as an "event planner". Hairhorn (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is still promotional fluff. He's not notable, he's notorious, and the two are not the same. If it is kept, the article won't be flattering, as half of the new sources about him are about the Paris Hilton thing, and the most indepth is quite a hatchet job:[1]. He's a non-notable name-dropper and serial litigator. Fences and windows (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as promotional BLP. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I wish to point out that the creator of the article has placed comments on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Brian Quintana arguing why he feels the article should not be deleted. I also want to point out that said editor is an SPA who has taken ownership of the article, reverts all edits calling them vandalism, and has not assumed good faith. Tabercil (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement/non-vote by article creator copied from talk page: --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Non-notable people don't make the cover of the LA Times or have 1 million plus Google hits. Prior to their recent hit piece on Quintana (by a former Court TV columnist), The LA Times identified him as a producer with ties to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Clintons on three separate occasions:

The day ends with a 3,000-seat black-tie dinner and concert, with scheduled performances by Carole King and Jimmy Buffet, among other. Invited glitterati include Warren Beatty and Annette Bening, said Brian Quintana, a Malibu producer involved in the planning. “Nancy Pelosi wanted a humble swearing-in and to go about the people's business,” Quintana said. “Then calls started coming in from all over the country. She decided we needed to thank the people who helped her get here.” Faye Fiore 12/11/06 http://articles.latimes.com/2006/dec/11/nation/na-pelosi11?page_type=article&exci=2006%7C12%7C11%7Cnation%7Cna-pelosi11&pg=1

"and former Pelosi staffer-turned-Hollywood producer Brian Quintana also attended the morning festivities." Tina Daunt, January 5, 2007 http://webapp1.latimes.com/yourtimes/media_personalities/poli_td_story.html

"If Clinton loses in New Hampshire tonight, predicted longtime political operative turned Hollywood producer Brian Quintana, Hollywood "will defect to Barack in droves. It is not a question of loyalty; Barack is simply too close to making history for Hollywood not to be part of it," Quintana said. "For most of us, Hillary was our first choice, but she has come up short. Barack has become a movement." http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-cause8jan08,0,4545063.story Four Presidents, Speaker Pelosi, and countless national figures appear cozy in photographs with Quintana on his website and other published sites. No one has questioned the authenticity of those photos. The LA Times has since retracted their story and as I noted in an LA Times blog:

Shame on the LAT for the hatchet job you did on producer Brian Quintana last Sunday (3/22/09). As a native of East LA who has emerged as one of the ranking Latinos in Hollywood, Brian serves as a role model to countless Latinos and young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds like me. Prior to his current lawsuit against Jon Peters, Brian has sued exactly one person, and that was in small claims Court in 1995. (He prevailed in the civil matter.) You failed to mention that he has never been sued until the current counter claim by Peters. That's not bad in the entertainment industry. http://www.edpadgett.com/blog/2009/03/response-to-brian-quintana-article.html The fact that two separate Courts granted him protective orders ten years apart and lifted one of the two is not unusual. As for his pending suit against his producing partner, The Hollywood Reporter which is an industry standard is by far the least tabloid write up. http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2008/12/superman-produc.html

It appears Quintana's foe Jon Peters planted the hit piece and removed his screen credit on their $175M Superman sequel, but other industry sites continue to list Quintana as co-producer: http://www.hollywood.com/celebrity/Brian_Quintana/5351986 http://cinema.theiapolis.com/movie-0C9K/superman-man-of-steel/ USA Today and other national outlets tout him as a prospective candidate for Congress which clearly qualifies him as a public figure. At best Quintana is a self made role model to the Latino community. At worst the verdict is still out. Let's not write his obit yet. www.brianquintana.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeledean (talk • contribs) 14:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - [2], [3], [4], [5] would indicate there is more than a minimum of coverage to establish notability. Issues of article ownership, conflict of interest, tone, and verifiability can be dealth with through editting. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no notability by association. --Bejnar (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you review the sources I put forth? The first one is about him -- as in primary subject. The third and fourth are also about him. As per WP:NOTE, this is signifcant coverage address the subject directly in detail. I fail to see how it is notability by association. -- Whpq (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response It is not the sources, it is the lack of any personal notability. He didn't do anything notable. --Bejnar (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Four and Five are from the celebrity gossip sections of notable newspapers. I'm not sure how we are to account for this in determining whether they are from reliable sources which WP:NOTE requires. After all, wikipedia is not supposed to be a tabloid per WP:BLP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per passing in spades the inclusion requirements of WP:N and WP:GNG by the very few examples shared by User:Whpq and the inumerable examples found through even the laziest of cursory searches. This guy is all over the news... and last time I checked guideline, that makes him notable. Any concerns with the article's style or its improperly made assertions is to be addressed though copyedit and WP:CLEANUP. AfD is not for cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes notability test easily, but the article is in danger of becoming a WP:COATRACK for BLP violations; I am not certain that the cited material in the article (all about harrassment suits and the like) doesn't violate WP:UNDUE in some real way; however this is a cleanup issue, and the subject seems notable so the article should be kept. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I would love for the article to be fair & balanced, but there's not a whole lot of material out there at reliable sources about Brian. Additionally, I don't see how we can even use material on Brian's own website given that the most substantial article about him at a reliable source is this one which clearly raises questions about the subject's own veracity. I do believe Fences & Windows put it best earlier: "He's not notable, he's notorious" Tabercil (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michaeldean above dug up a bunch of less critical references. There's tons of stuff out there, it will just take someone dedicated enough to use it to build a good article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Michaeledean did. As I pointed out below, one of the source he used is Brian Quintana's own website. Another source he used got tagged by Fences & Windows as "not in citation given". Tabercil (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes notability test easily. I added cited positive material to balance those regarding harassment. Tabercil's claims that not many positive articles exist are unfounded. One need only go to links on his website and Fame Game that take you to reliable source material. --michaeldean.talk.contribs 23:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeledean (talk • contribs) [reply]

Uh-huh. Right. You added material sourced from Brian's own website as the balancing "positive" when we already know from the LA Times article that he's a exaggerator. Not a good idea... Tabercil (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added The Hollywood Reporter, The Los Angeles Independent, and South Coast Magazine. The fact that Quintana's website links to them does not make them any less credible. Why would he link to negative stories about himself. Further, the LA Times was clearly a hit piece and should be taken for what it was. The fact that a Hollywood producer is a bit full of himself does not make them any less notable. If you have personal issue with this Quintana then perhaps you should not edit his Wiki. michaeldean (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeledean (talk • contribs) [reply]

I don't have anything against Mr. Quintana either way. All I want from this article is the same thing regarding every article on Wikipedia: one that is well-written, neutral in viewpoint and backed by references to reliable sources. As the article stands right now, the first point is debatable, the second is non-existant and the last point (reliable sources) is what largely prompted me to issue the AfD. Tabercil (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pretty surprised that "Michaeledean" is still allowed to edit this article, or that he's even on wiki anymore after getting a final warning. I'm also surprised no one has taken the term "Hollywood film producer" out of the article, or at least added "citation needed", in light of Brian Quintana's imdb page: [6]. Hairhorn (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Michaeledean" stopped unilaterally reverting the article back to his original version and started participating in the give and take of Wikipedia, that's why. Tabercil (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly is he noteworthy for? Nightscream (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly! He didn't do anything notable. --Bejnar (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He hasn't done anything notable. Dismas|^(talk) 04:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability doesn't require that he be famous or popular, some people seem confused on that fact. Brian Quintana is a notable person in Hollywood and Washington DC as the many sources indicate. Dogtownclown (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2009 (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.