Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Gleiberman

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. MBisanz ^talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Gleiberman[edit]

A reviewer who's claim to fame is that he said a bad movie was good (at least that's what the discussion forums used as refs say). Non-notable. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless completely rewritten. With 20 years as a film critic for a major publication, Gleiberman is notable enough for an article and should have one. However, the present article is complete garbage, focusing solely on embarassing stuff from his schoolboy days (is that even true?) and his questionable review of Epic Movie. Yes, he should have an article but this is not it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to make it easier to write a solid article. With the section about the Scary Movie review removed, the article still has enough material to live on. The only problem is that it needs some time to be referenced. (all the current refs are in the then removed section) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Really? I thought his claim to fame was being one of the two primary film critics for one of the most widely distributed general-audience entertainment magazines in the United States for nearly two decades. On that note, I'm kinda surprised that Lisa Schwarzbaum is red-linked. Poechalkdust (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but rewrite, edit down to basics as a prerequiste if necessary, but clearly a notable figure.Vartanza (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as a primary critic for EW. With regard to the two delete/userfy !votes above, see WP:NOEFFORT - AfD is not cleanup, and there is no deadline. —97198 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This should be an easy keep, given his long term status as a movie critic for Entertainment Weekly. Can't say it better than Vartanza and 97198. Lisa Schwarzbaum should have an article too. Rlendog (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yeah I agree that its a totally easy call for keeping Garynine (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry but "A reviewer who's claim to fame is that he said a bad movie was good," has to be about the worse rationale for nomination I've ever read, regardless of what one might have read in a ref. Owen Glieberman is a nationally read, very well known film critic. Keep per WP:SNOW. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2009 (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.