Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Berardinelli


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

James Berardinelli

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

An obscure, self-published, nonprofessional Internet film critic whose sole claim to fame has been very brief praise from Roger Ebert a few years ago. The subject wrote a pair of equally obscure non-notable books that don’t meet WP:BK requirements. Google News searches only finds him cited among groups of critics rather than as a single authoritative entity – there is no single media profile of him to be found. The article fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR as well as WP:RS (nearly all of the article’s information comes directly from the subject’s self-published site). Warrah (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just added, as sources to the article, four mainstream newspaper articles mentioning him. One (the one in The Ledger) is a trivial mention, but the other three are not. I think he passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I might disagree -- the Wired and LA Times coverage only includes him in a couple of quotes as part of coverage of a wider topic. Both articles acknowledge he is a self-published amateur. Warrah (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - a published author with enough independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability in my eyes. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per David Eppstein and MikeWazowski. He may be a self-published amateur, but a prominent and notable one. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, established amateur, 2 books, used in Rotten Tomatoes aggregate. --Stephen 21:09, 20 December 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.