Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Berardinelli (2nd nomination)


 * 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. per sources offered during this discussion and consesnsus that topic meets inclusion criteria.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

James Berardinelli
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination for Rpundurs, whose rationale was posted at the article's talk page and is included verbatim below. On the merits, I make no recommendation. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you UltraExact; a more thorough explanation of my position: At the time of the previous deletion discussion, Berardinelli was just barely hovering on the edge of notability. He was a self-published amateur to whom actual notables had made the occasional reference, and there was a possibility that in the years that were to come he would improve his CV and become a legitimate notable on his own merit. However, since then, there have been no meaningful changes to his article - no new sources of information concerning him from third parties, no participation in significant events, etc. What we have now is a guy who could have become unquestionably notable, but is in fact still just as small-time as he was last time this page came up for deletion. Since Wikipedia is not an Internet Yellow Pages for little fish bloggers, I recommend Beradinelli get the boot. Rpundurs (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of sources. 3 of the 4 sources given are his own site, the last one looks reliable at a glance but isn't primarily about him, providing maybe a medium-sized paragraph worth of reliable info at best.  That's not enough to support an article, especially not a BLP. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage among news, books, and scholarly sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "good deal of secondary source coverage?" With Warden's addition of the Wired article, there are now exactly two secondary sources, neither of which are actually *about* Beradinelli - both of them are mainly about how nobodies like Berardinelli can now put their opinions online. Rpundurs (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Rpundurs summarizes the history of this article correctly up above. The subject appears nonnotable as coverage on him isn't significant enough to evidence notability.  Them From  Space  19:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:WIRED. See . Warden (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Wired rule is cute, but the Wired article is not specifically about Berardinelli or his activities - rather, it is about how Berardinelli and other web critics get no respect. Just being referred to in a Wired article shouldn't, I hope, be the criterion for notability. Would WP:CREATIVE apply here? Rpundurs (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Wired article is not the only one which discusses such web critics. The other cases all seem to give James Berardinelli as a prominent or primary example.  So, even if there's not enough for a separate article, we could use such material in a section of another article such as Film criticism, which could use some help.  So, the worst case is obviously merger not deletion.  See WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Using these two references in Film criticism would be a good way to avoid wasting perfectly good references. Rpundurs (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. gets specialized coverage in his field but needs more widespread mainstream coverage to be notable. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, However, look for additional sources to further solidify the article. If possible, some that do not originate from Berardinelli's own site, such as the Wired article Warden retrieved. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As for his credibility, I would make the argument that his recognition by more noticable members of his area at any time, his longevity on the Internet, a site resulting in full recognition by organizations such as Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, and the Online Film Critics Society would make him a notable figure. The current Wikipedia page is poorly written and only draws from his own sources, as I mentioned before, which can make him look less important.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  01:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Roger Ebert, the world’s most prominent film critic, spoke very highly of Berardinelli, referred to him as “the best of the web-based critics”, wrote a foreword for his book , and constantly promoted him whenever possible. We have plenty of articles for far less notable critics, including James Rolfe, Doug Walker, and Noah Antwiler. If Rolfe, Walker, and Antwiler get their own pages, then Berardinelli is also worthy of 1. Clearly, this is a stub, and requires significant expansion, but that’s no reason to delete. 184.5.179.183 (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I alerted WikiProject Film to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BASIC (as I do not think WP:AUTHOR applies here). I think that The Kansas City Star and Wired are good "base" pieces to reflect his background, and I am seeing enough quoting of Berardinelli in various film recaps that it seems appropriate to have a Wikipedia article on him. It would be detrimental to delete it. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "I am seeing enough quoting of Berardinelli in various film recaps..." Film recaps where? If they are third-party hosted, add them as references to the article. If they're on Wiki, remember notability does not come from Wikipedia. Rpundurs (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * , what I mean by quoting of Berardinelli is that his reviews are cited in works like Veiled Desires: Intimate Portrayals of Nuns in Postwar Anglo-American Film (2013). I believe that these frequent attributions warrant a Wikipedia article so people can look him up. I dug deeper, though, and found a couple of more profile-type references: 1.) (which covers both Berardinelli and Ralph Hirshorn) and 2.) . To go back to the frequent attributions, these are results of Berardinelli being referenced in numerous books in 2012 alone. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same WP:BASIC reasons Erik just listed and because Rpundurs seems to be allowing his/her own feelings about this "non-notable joker" affect his/her objectivity. I've edited numerous articles to include Berardinelli's reviews, not because I'm an advocate using "Wiki as an advert for his site", but because he is a Rotten Tomatoes designated Top Critic with an expansive (and literate) range of reviews that are often helpful when covering obscure titles.Jg2904 (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2013 (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.