Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.C. Maçek III (writer)


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

J.C. Maçek III (writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film critic. He's written for a few publications, but there's no significant coverage of the critic himself. The sources listed here are just articles he's written or trivial mentions. A search on Google News for turns up pretty much nothing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is notable, has enough sources. Full disclosure, I'm the creator of this article.  This subject is a notable film critic with many, many reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, which only allows noteworthy film critics who have written for professional publications like PopMatters to have their work listed on their site. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Having done something is far different than being known for doing something, no matter how many Rotten Tomatoes reviews written or how many websites Maçek contributes to. (all of which are primary sources and do not demonstrate notability) His novel is self published. We need clear, demonstrable evidence that people besides this article creator and (presumably) the editors of PopMatters etc. think this subject is noteworthy, rather than simply a way to attract more eye-balls in an increasingly crowded field of freelance writers that is the internet. Minor acting/producing roles do not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the evidence being presented at this moment, there is little or no indication that the contributor is more than a journalist: journalist need a higher standard than coverage in sources, because the professional expectation is to cite eachother among journalists. Also pages like Rotten Tomatoes Aggregate very widely. Sadads (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2016 (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.