Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Dittman (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Dittman[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem particularly notable as either a publisher or critic, and was unable to find independence coverage of any significance. – Ploni (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: I had not noticed that the article was previously nominated for deletion. It doesn't look like the article has been improved since then, but the arguments in favour of keeping may still hold up. –Ploni (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What's here seems pretty unbalanced and is overwhelmingly negative to Dittman. I removed some material that was a violation of WP:BLP, an assertion stood up on a 404 page as a source, but I'd question whether the majority of content in this short article is WP:DUE - something I'll leave to editors with an interest in the subject. As for WP:GNG, I have my very deep doubts, note the previous AfD was undersubscribed and don't think the sources on offer confer notability to a writer of movie reviews with very little indepth coverage. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically he is a film reviewer who gets tabloidy mentions for doing reviews that do not in most people's views conform to the quality of the reviews. There is not really any high quality coverage. Wikipedia is not meant to have articles on everyone who is ever briefly mentioned somewhere. I do not see how he actually meets any reasonable inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD and sources existing within the article. Artw (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The number of sources a WP:BEFORE check comes up with is lengthy, especially in the books department. This book covers him across three pages. He is mentioned briefly here, has interviewed Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds as mentioned in this book, his interview of Schwarzenegger is mentioned in this book and the list continues on from here. He is covered significantly here by CNN, mentioned briefly by the New York Post here and again the list continues. Countless hits all over the internet. The article needs work, but AFD is not cleanup. Notability guideline is easily satisfied. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree, with the CNN and the other mentions, passes notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep grudgingly. While Dittman is a shitstain in the world of film criticism, he’s gained enough notoriety for that over the last two decades that it makes him notable enough for an article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of whether he's made a positive contribution to society or not, he has received sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.