Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik J. Berg


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Erik J. Berg

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a child actor with a bright future, but who doesn't currently meet the inclusion criteria. While he has acted in a widely reviewed movie, he has only been named in passing in reviews&mdash;certainly he does not star in it. Come back in a few years. Bongo matic  08:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've found reviews that make it clear he plays a signficant role in Haunting, but we need multiple (at least two) such roles to meet inclusion criteria despite the lack of indepth sources. The IMDB listing for "I Really, Really Like You" has him up relatively high in the credits, but they are unreliable especially since I've seen them mess that up in the last by listing the title character around that spot. Could someone dig up paper publications about that production? =- Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What are the sources you are referring to? I checked some of the more reliable reviews (Variety, NY Times, Roger Ebert) and he didn't get a mention. Bongo  matic  11:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the reviews by The Scotsman, The Birmingham Mail and The Gazette in Montreal here and the reviews listed at Metacritic. Both the character Berg plays and the room the character lives in are critical to the story. What I'm asking is whether IMDB is by chance correct in listing him high up in the credits for the other film I mentioned. If it is and it can be proven, then "2 or more significant roles" clearly apply. - Mgm|(talk) 10:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Scotsman: "The building used to be a funeral parlour and the old owner's son Jonah (Erik J Berg) was a conduit for evil, bridging the divide between the real and the spirit worlds. Jonah returns to wreak havoc on the Campbells." this is the last paragraph of a three paragraph blurb, and the only mention of the character or actor. This is what is called a "passing reference", and does not constitute "significant coverage".
 * The Birmingham Mail: Almost identical text to The Scotsman.
 * The Gazette: Mentioned once in credits, with no further mention of actor or character. Bongo  matic  22:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see all these sources either and in addition and for the record I take issue with "multiple" meaning "two or more" in this situation. Drawn Some (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would this situation be any different from all the other articles we have? - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Drawn Some (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * weak keep In looking toward WP:GNG: Alonso Duralde of MSNBC: "I was particularly taken with Berg, who has almost no dialogue, but who expresses volumes through his eyes and facial expressions; he could have been huge in silent cinema, but hopefully there’s a place for him in talkies as well. (It’s Berg, incidentally, who you see on the posters with the weird driftwood-like blob thing coming out of his mouth.)" seems a bit more-than-trivial and would tend to nudge the bar of the WP:GNG a bit more.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I would side with MichaelQ. The problem originates in the inherently subject nature of WP:GNG, todays interpretation of "significant" etc.  It cetainly passes WP:V. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2009 (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.