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.
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
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 - 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 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
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.
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.
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
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 - 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 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
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.