Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Ochieng

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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 21:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Ochieng

Seems to be squeaking on the border of notability, though more on the side of non-notability. His official site has no Alexa Rank, and a Google PageRank of 4/10. --Deathphoenix 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Can't anyone be an online film critic? Delete unless someone makes a case for this. -- JJay 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No Alexa rank = no notability for his website, around which all his "fame" must circulate, by definition. JHMM13 (T | C) 22:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 23:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of evidence that anyone but Ochieng cares what Ochieng things about anything. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. Seems to be pretty prominent, or at least prolific, as a movie reviewer -- I get 40,000 google hits, and see for example this page, where he's one of three reviewers listed (on the other hand, that site doesn't appear to be well known). bikeable (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• NPOV The language used appears to talk Frank up. There is no reason for a film critic not be mentioned in WP but their contribution to film criticism should be mentioned, not just their presence on panels, committees, etc. The substance of his criticism is of note. If there is nothing distinctive about his opinions to justify an article, delete. -- (aeropagitica)  00:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Qualified Ochieng's appearances on WBZ radio have proved popular over the years. He has met the qualifications to be part of Rotten Tomatoes, MovieEye, SF Crowsnest, etc. Frank's reviews are witty and informative, and he's well-respected amongst

other film critics. As someone who has interviewed him numerous times on my own radio show (WMWM Salem MA), I can testify his knowledge and insights on film and television media do qualify him for WP inclusion. (raccoonradio)

• Qualified Frank Ochieng in my opinion deserves to be part of Wikipedia. He has been a major contributor to many on-line, and various print publications over the years as expressed (above). I have been reading Mr. Ochieng's work over many years and there are few writers like him in-depth, informative, and more than qualified to be part of your site.

I can also say this as well because of his numerous appearances on my TV interview program 'A Time To Review' on Brookline Access Television. He is a great writer and he has proven this because I have worked with him personally (The Voicemakers). Daniel Berman, Newton Magazine

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.