Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Thompson (film critic)


 * 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. Clear consensus that the additional sources are more than sufficient. Page move to a clearer job title worth some discussion on talk page (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Anne Thompson (film critic)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page was created by the subject herself, and has no third-party source. I can't definitively say it fails to satisfy WP:NBIO, but at present I think it should be at least moved to Draft. The title is also somewhat inappropriate (she's more a journalist than a critic AFIAK). Nardog (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable as an author and journalist covering the film industry. "Film critic" is not quite the best description, but we already have Anne Thompson (journalist), so the proper move target would require some thought. Yes, self-promotion is generally bad, but in this case, it's at most a matter of editing for tone. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for augmenting the sourcing, though I'm not sure if any of them qualifies as "significant coverage" which WP:GNG demands (which is not to say they may not be combined to demonstrate notability). I have found these articles to be more potentially qualifying than those you added.
 * As for the disambiguator, I suggest "(film journalist)" or "(film writer)". Nardog (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those two sources! I was mostly looking for sources that substantiated individual claims, rather than depth of coverage overall. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes GNG by a mile. Why are we even here in this case? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: a notable film critic; meets GNG per sources above and those already present in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies AUTHOR with multiple periodical reviews. James500 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:33, 22 August 2018 (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.