Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Rush


 * 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. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your friends. Fails WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 15:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

James Rush

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No claim of notability. No significant coverage in reliable sources. The article was created by a person with a user name of JustJamesRush. A web search leads to no reliable sources giving significant coverage. SchreiberBike talk 06:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Creator claims not to be James Rush on their talk page, but "a friend". Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable individual. IMdb is not reliable or a marker for notability. Observer article is just a mention based on him tweeting that he finished a tv series quickly and doesn't relate to his notability as a film critic. Cowlibob (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Argument Against What Is Claimed
 * Firstly the IndieWire page / source confirms that James Rush is infact a film critic and IndieWire is a notable and reliable source which invites critics on an individual bases into its network. Secondly James Rush is just as notiable as another critic on Wikipedia Jason Gorber at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Gorber, his sources are also just as questionable. Additionally the Observer article confirms that he is in fact the editor-in-chief of Tastic Film Magazine. Finally if you search "james rush tastic film" on Google you can find this site (http://american-interior.com/film/) an official film site for a film called 'American Interior' quoting him as a film critic. The IMDB page is only listed as a source to confirm that he is infact born in 1996 and that he has previously directed and written a film. If you would like to read one of James Rush's film reviews from the 2013 Cannes Film Festival simply go to the link in the brackets (http://www.tasticfilm.com/festivals/cannes-review-all-is-lost/3000).


 * Added Source I have added a source, a list of film critics accredited as press for the 2014 Cannes Film Festival at this link (http://www.cannesinteractive.com/files/Liste.Medias.pdf?id=56390503&id2=13D920CC232&id3=124) You can find James Rush on page 192 of the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.228.124.38 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I would also like to say that the fact that he is featured in an Observer is the exact reason why he is notable.


 * There is no debate about whether he is a film critic or has been recognized as such by someone, the question is whether he is notable by Wikipedia's standards. The existing sources do not demonstrate that. Regarding the other critic you mention. That critic does appear to be more notable and regardless, other stuff exists does not change the standard of notability. SchreiberBike talk 20:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well SchreiberBike could I just ask in which way he is "more notable". As if you mean more search results in google belong to him, then think for a minute which name is more unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.228.124.38 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly, please sign your contributions and log in if possible so everyone knows who said what. Sinebot won't auto sign for you every time. What was the vetting process for Indiewire? I look at their directory and it contains critics who have written for reputable organisations such as LA Times but it also contains people who only host on their own website. We're discussing this article not others if you think that article has issues fix it or report it. The Observer article discusses him as a random person who binge watched a tv show, it would be different if they hosted a film review written by him. IMDb is not a reliable source. Being mentioned on the "American Interior" site does not confer notability. Going to Cannes or any film festival does not confer notability as any freelancer can do so. Cowlibob (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I am having trouble logging in. Secondly If you look it shows that James Rush was accredited as press at the Cannes Film Festival for the media outlet 'Tasticfilm.com' along with Peter Turner - So he is not a freelancer - if he was it actually states which members of press are freelancers or the media outlets that they are representing. Additionally, the Cannes Film Festival is the hardest in the world to get accredited for proving that any official member of press there is a high-level critic with a big audience. Finally, the vetting process for IndieWire is that you have to be a recognizable voice for critics, there as you can't apply, they just search out critics to send them an invitation to their network. I would also like to add that the list of websites run by critics, reporters and journalists that are hosting on their own website include The Verge and ScottFeinburg.com - most sites in the last five years started out as being a blog or run by someone, which James Rush did he founded Tastic Film Magazine whcih now has 13 reporters which you can find a list of at http://www.tasticfilm.com/contact-us. If you woudl like to see one of James' reviews which is on another site seprate form his own he has written for The Fan Carpet in the past you can see his review on there at http://www.thefancarpet.com/reviews/rapturepalooza/. 151.228.124.38 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What needs to be addressed is how the subject is notable as described at Notability (people) which is summarized by "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." SchreiberBike talk 21:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I think that the sources here already confirm that he has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and I think that the sources will grow more over time. 151.228.124.38 (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, we can't base notability on speculation about the future. Cowlibob (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said he is notable now based on those sources listed, i simply said that he will only become more notable over time. Also while Tastic FIlm Magazine is significant and has an audience in the hundreds of thousands and a following of 14.5 thousand on twitter including being followed by the hollywood reporter and deadline hollywood but it has no sources while James Rush individually has received more coverage from other publications. 151.228.124.38 (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is very bad practice to delete other people's contributions as you did with this edit. Do not do so again.  Cowlibob (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not a notable critic. A single story in the Observer is not sufficient to establish notability. The magazine is not notable. -- Green  C  02:01, 19 June 2014 (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.