Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Vejvoda


 * 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 redirect to IGN. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Jim Vejvoda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A film critic. The article was speedily deleted for lack of asserted notability. A discussion about this at Deletion review/Log/2015 August 8 did not reach consensus, so this AfD is to determine the subject's actual notability. This is a procedural nomination, I'm neutral.  Sandstein  07:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete If this was speedy deleted earlier, I suggest a delete and salt. Anyways, there is not enough coverage of this person in 3rd party sources. Just mentioning his name isn't notable; and even then there isn't much of that going on. The Undead Never Die (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep He's a film critic at a notable website, IGN, and he's not just a film critic there, mind you, he's also the Executive Editor of IGN's Movie Division. So, he holds a pretty significant job at IGN, not just that of a mere film critic. Which is why he is notable enough for his own article. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think salt isn't really appropriate as the speedy deletion (by me) was reversed for a DRV discussion that led to the article arriving here. Had the author given me time to reply to his post, I would have happily userfied it or moved it to Draft space for improvement. As Undead warrior says, there doesn't seem to be much coverage outside IGN and places Vejvoda's written at. I'd like to see some in depth coverage in something reliable, but in the 159 Google hits I didn't see anything. Being 'Executive Editor' can mean head of a large department, or a one man band operation. There isn't much in the article to give us a clue. I looked at the IGN article, and can't see a 'movies' channel (apart from "IGN Movies Middle East") mentioned there. There is still time to add to the article. Many articles have been improved while at AfD. Peridon (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just spotted an odd double negative at the start of my post above which I've now struck. Salt is not appropriate. Peridon (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for the total lack of sources independent of both the article subject and his employer. (The directory listing at muckrack.com shouldn't need to be mentioned, since, well, it's a directory listing.  But here I am, mentioning it anyway.)  "[Person] holds a pretty significant job" may be enough to invalidate a speedy deletion, but is in no manner a valid argument at AFD absent sourcing. —Cryptic 00:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources to sustain a BLP article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per my Comment above. No improvement has been made. Peridon (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is not a policy violation, and being unimproved or being a stubby is not a fault (sorry ) nor a reason to delete. I contend that in being extremely prolific and widely cited, he can be seen as meeting the subject-specific guideline WP:JOURNALIST#1 even if weak on WP:GNG. I note that guideline instructs in many SNGs that determining notability is not a contest to see who is most "popular" in the media, and even our basic and underlying WP:N instructs that even though such may enhance the acceptability of a subject, "determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity".  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck. My reasoning is below.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for
 * The article as it stands still does not meet the GNG after being under threat of deletion during the DRV and the AfD.
 * The article as it stands, still does not meet BLP guidelines as the references presented are 3 links to IGN (his employer or his own writings), and a newswriter version of Linked-In (which falls under the WP:SPS failure conditions).
 * The argument that "Executive Editor of Movies Division" does not hold weight, nor does being a film critic. How many executive editors are for the movie divison?  How many divisons?  Furthermore does being an executive editor of the movie division on a site that focuses primarily on Video Games confer a level of notability? Does reviewing a single film qualify you to be a film critic?
 * The "notable event" of compiling a list of top 10 movies for a website property is not not notable.
 * Co-hosting a podcast talking about film news does not confer notability. It can support a marginal claim of notability, but it cannot stand on it's own for a notability claim.
 * In short, since the speedy deletion was overturned on technical grounds (which I disagree with) no substantial improvement has developed with respect to this submission which indicates in my mind that this BLP is still not notable and therefore should be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I contend that MichaelQSchmidt's "citing" is only in passing and rises, at best, to cherry picked quotes that a journalist chose to fulfill their narrative pre-conceptions for the stories they are mentioned in. Hasteur (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * makes no claims that WP:GNG is met (LOL), and may "contend" whatever he wishes, but
 * Guideline specifically tells us that while nice, the GNG is not the sole determinant of notability.
 * Showing that a person is widely cited and has multiple reviews to meet WP:JOURNALIST is not "cherry-picking", specially as it would make no sense to pick reviews by someone else or someone else's expertise being cited. A film reviewer is expected to share their opinions. How far and wide is just how WP:JOURNALIST can be seen as met even with the GNG being very weak.
 * Policy WP:BLP instructs on neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research... not notability. That'd be WP:BIO and its various SNGs.
 * And while I do contend WP:JOURNALIST is just met through the man's works, even under WP:ENTERTAINER co-hosting a popular podcast or web series can be a sign of notability, but that is not the contention.
 * So and again, as apparently not understood, I make no assertion that the the GNG is met, only that we have a guideline supported assertion of notability in its lack. Even with the article being stubby, it is within policy. This clarified and with its content being so brief, I would not be opposed to its 69-sourced-words being merged and redirected to IGN to better serve our readers, as we're here for them, not ourselves. Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So glad that you know how misrepresent policy. For notability it's either GNG or a SNG. Your claim that he passes JOURNALIST by having being cited a few times does not hold water. Think about all the movie reviewing sites, think about all the critics that write movie reviews, think about all the movies, then think about the passing mentions that you put forward to justify inclusion. A movie critic that is widely syndicated across multiple newspapers, or one that writes for a major newspaper outlet or media market, one that is widely known as a film critic (Robert Ebert for example) can be mentioned in passing and it's clear that they are notable. While I aplaud your attempt to twist policy about what a BLP must contain, you seem to have missed the very first sentence of WP:V In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.  And finally popularity is not a measure of notability, also taking into account that the claim of podcast notability depends on his film critic notability which has already been proven to be lacking. Hasteur (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What I do know and I do not misrepresent is that policy is policy and guideline is guideline... and while policy is usually immutable, I also know and accept that each guideline has the (often ignored) hat-note "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". As that SNG does not state any specific quantity, I shared a few representative samples... not realizing that "you" would wish this  discussion to be blocked up by my providing links to every single one of his hundreds or thousands of reviews. Whew.  But as that SNG does not state any specific quantity, just how many instances of the man's reviews and how many times being cited by others would you personally demand to be able to even grudgingly admit that WP:JOURNALIST might be met??  And do you also disagree with the meaning and intent of WP:RSOPINION??  And how is you are able to convince yourself that the many sources offered to support my contention fail policies requirement for the WP:V of the assertion?  I've already granted that a merge and redirect would serve our readers (even if not you personally, as I realize you will never be convinced, and that's fine)... But DO NOT EVER state that I misrepresent policy. Such blatant WP:ADHOM is suitable for WP:ANI if repeated. Buh bye.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as the person does not appear to meet the basic BLP criteria or the journalist criteria. #1 in the latter criteria does not apply; his name has not been referenced in reliable sources outside IGN. The only exception I can find is him being quoted in the book Inhabited by Stories: Critical Essays on Tales Retold. Ultimately, not seeing why a stand-alone article is warranted; mention at IGN of his role seems sufficient. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that his expertise has been cited outside of IGN many times: enough so that a mention and redirect does serve our readers.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that is what "widely cited" means, though? The way #1 is worded, "widely cited" being after "regarded as an important figure", seems to me to mean that when people widely cite you, they explicitly highlight your work or commentary, not just doing due diligence of including footnotes referencing articles that happened to be written by a journalist. Being quoted in that book is one such example, but I think we need more like that, not just footnote examples, to meet the "widely cited" criteria. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to IGN or delete. Wikipedia has too many articles on non-notable film critics.  Merely being prolific or getting a few trivial mentions scattered throughout Google results doesn't really do anything to establish notability.  Someone like Roger Ebert or Kim Newman, who we can actually write a biography about, deserve to have articles.  If all we can say is "he writes reviews for a website", then I don't think there's any hope of establishing notability, and you might as well just redirect his article to the website in question. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect and mention at IGN is acceptable per thoughts of and reasonable response of . Sense is always appreciated, thank you.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge / Redirect over to IGN, with something like a few sentences or so about him added over there CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2015 (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.