Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 15:39, 2 February 2022

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. Off-wiki comments notwithstanding, those wanting deletion didn't rebut about passing WP:ENTERTAINER to swing consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Vincent Caso

If you came here because http://community.watchtheguild.com/forum/topics/save-vince-casos-wikipedia, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Or from http://forum.anchorcove.net/viewtopic.php?f=42&p=16908

Vincent Caso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

One of my wikistalkers User:Mathieas feels the need to disagree/revert me, so I have to spam another afd. Subject seems to fail WP:BIO/WP:N and seems to be only known for being in The Guild so redirect there. Otterathome (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment First off, I recent the baseless accusation that I am a wikistalker. Second I find it laughable that User:Otterathome is concerned with spamming afd subjects given the number of articles he has nominated for deletion in the past two weeks. Third, User:Otterathome unilaterally decided to replace an article with a redirect, I reverted it and stated on the articles talk page that I believed it warranted discussion and nomination before being deleted. He then went and replaced the article again with a redirect. So yes I do disagree with him. Mathieas (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, so his comments about you and about "spamming" are unproductive at best, and are maybe even uncivil. Fine. So, why do you feel this subject passes notability criteria (WP:BIO/WP:N)? -MrFizyx (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's borderline. WP:BIO requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Well, true, if 'multiple' is 'two', and 'notable' is 'can be read about online'. Given that he's actively working, I'd veer towards keep, for now. Rogerborg (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As has been noted by cfryrer, The Guild, now in it's third season, has been nominated for a number of notable web based video awards. It has received such incredible support that Xbox worked with the cast to produce a music video "Do You Wanna Date My Avatar" which went to number one on both itunes and Amazon downloads. I believe that the cast also voiced characters for a game produced by them and even invited the cast to a recent game launch. The program is also popular enought to have time slots at the recent Comicom and PAX. I believe that this program will becaome more popular, rather than less, meaning that it's stars will become more popular, rather than less. So that decision is, do we delete the entry for the sake of semantics only to put the same entry up again in 6 months time... or do we give him the benefit of six months grace and see where the growing popularity of The Guild takes him?... --Chuxsta (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Above two comments are very WP:CRYSTAL, and we require sources so it passes WP:N.--Otterathome (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

DELETE This man does not meet WP:N standard.Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Both Simonm and Otterathome seem to think that failing WP:N means that a subject is not notable. This is a not true. WP:N clearly states: "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines". As Rogerborg has said, the subject meets (just about) WP:ENTERTAINER. As WP:N states that meeting "one of the more subject-specific guidelines" (such as WP:ENTERTAINER) makes a subject notable it is obvious that the subject is notable. Spitfire 19:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please explain which part of WP:ENTERTAINER it passes.--Otterathome (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• The part that says he's notable if he's had: "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." And arguably the part that says "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Spitfire 09:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• He's had one signicant role in this "American Fork" film which I'm having trouble finding much information on to see whether it's very notable. And co-starred (according to the article) in The Guild web series. We have no reliable source on having a large cult/fanbase following. If we had one non-trivial article so it passes WP:N then that'd be no problem. But so far he's played a role in one web series and and a role in what appears to be a low profile film.--Otterathome (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• It looks to me like you're pretty sure that you're right and equally I am sure that I'm right so going back and forth would be a bit of a pointless excercise. ;) We both seem to have said what we think on the subject and we'll just have to see what the deleting admin thinks. Spitfire 14:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• You re-assured me he had a 'following/fanbase' yet you can't back it up with sources making it original research.--Otterathome (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Otterathome, I actually said he is notable because he has had significant roles in a notable film and television show (American Fork and The Guild). I then said the arguably he is also notable as having a large fanbase, "arguably" seems to have been the right way to describe it ;p, I said that in regard to Lindaestabrook's comment below (which I suggest you read as it explains the fan base better than I can.) Anyway, I feel like right now I am simply repeating what others have said previously and you are repeating what you (and others) have already said and no ones really changing their minds and nothing new is coming in, which is why I think we should just leave this discussion as finished and let the admin decide. Kind regards, Spitfire 16:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, as he's a primary cast member of a web series notable enough to have a exclusive distribution contract with Microsoft and their own ComicCon panel..--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• The show is distributed through their console, if it was that notable there'd be more sources on him available.--Otterathome (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Notability is established by non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. I don't see any sources in this article that satisfy WP:RS. If these are found and added then I will reconsider my vote. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I agree it is a borderline case; however, under WP:Entertainer A subject is notable if they have a large 'cult' following. The Guild and Vincent Caso both fall under this I believe. Large online fan base, they were the toast of ComicCon and Blizzcon, I believe that qualifies as a large cult following. Also, WP:Del says that deference should be given to stub articles because of the ability to improve upon them. Also, for completion sake the article should not be deleted since it would create a hole (a dead link to a major player) in the Guild coverage. Lastly, rather then simply turning the page into a redirect as otterathome did unilaterally perhaps the material could be merged into another article. Mathieas (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: One thing to keep in mind here, an AFD Guideline that Otter has repeatedly and flagrantly disregarded: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Something that needs to be debated and decided if any reasonable result is to be achieved; if it is believed that notability critera are not met, is it because they CANNOT be, or simply because it's an article in the early stage of its life-cycle? There are some other issues here as well: the NOM ITSELF has issues with WP:CIVIL and outright states that he's nom'd the article because of the actions of a SINGLE USER, which is at least dangerously close to WP:POINT(especially if no attempt was made at consensus before or after the actions in question). Given that the nominator is currently on report at both wikiquette and AN/I for issues related to a different web series(Including AFD-ing an actor's article twice in three weeks, with a DRV inbetween)... This isn't as cut and dried as people just stumbling upon it now might think, and needs a lot more in-depth discussion and thought than may immediately be apparent. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bring this up anon, I actually came here from AN/I, and it does seem a little like Otter has nominated this article to prove a point. However, this in no way changes my opinion on what should be done with the article. I don't think that we should let a users "reputation" change the way we treat the AfDs that they nominate. I don't think that we should let the drama of the wiki cause the deletion of "good" articles, nor should we cause it to allow us to keep "bad" articles. Kind regards, Spitfire 10:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh aye. Problem there comes when you check the edit history of the article. Otter's first edit, the one that got reverted, was to blank and redirect the page. Mathieas constested the 'unilateral deletion' and left a note on the talk page when he reverted. Otter then re-reverted to the redirect version, saying it wasn't a deletion, Mathieas re-re-reverted that saying it seemed like it to him, then Otter nom'd here. Over 24 hours later, Otter went through and put up a notability template and a couple fact tags. The overall effect is that he tried to sneak the redirection through, got caught, nom'd it as a result, then went back and added the templates and tags you would've expected to be step one after the fact. Diffs: Now, of course, people having been notified of the issues, there are actually people trying to fix it. The problem isn't just that Otter's nom has problems, it's that no attempt whatsoever has been made to determine if the problem with the article is lack of sources(and therefore notability) or that the available sources aren't included in the article(and therefore it's just a young article that needs work). This has largely happened because of the way Otter went about this nom. He tried to sneak it through. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources say the show has a following, not him.--Otterathome (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Additional sources support a stand-alone article. I do not feel the project could benefit from it's deletion. -MrFizyx (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• What sources? It still fails WP:N.--Otterathome (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I feel that just enough in-line citations have been pieced together to pass, also there is room for expansion as Caso begins to do some of his own interviews (like this one). I think your initial effort to merge & redirect was reasonable, but doing so now would not be productive. -MrFizyx (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Agree with MrFizyx's rationale.--Milowent (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Sorry, I'm just trying to join the discussion and don't understand all of the parameters or abbreviations, but if it helps, American Fork, a film that this actor is a lead in, is also coming to theaters soon and it will then be available on Netflix, etc. There's already an entry on Netflix for it. Someone said that the show has a following, but the actor does not. This is not true. If you googled him, you might know this. There is a fan club and website being started for him and he is well known amongst the show's forums and other fansites, including Whedonage for being something of a teen heartthrob, receiving marriage proposals and phone numbers slipped to him at conventions. He's also got almost 1700 follower on Twitter - maybe not Ashton Kutcher levels, but this actor has his own following. In addition, The Guild is a multi-award winning web phenomenon, in its 3rd season now, sponsored by Microsoft/Xbox/Sprint and the music video they just did went to #1 on iTunes and Amazon downloads with nearly 4 million views on YouTube alone so far. Every cast member of that show deserves their own page. And thank you to the person who signed my entry for me before - I didn't know how, but have since learned.Lindaestabrook (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Per above. Gage (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - as per above NRTurner (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - lacks the necessary reliable sources which establish that this person is notable, i.e., which cover him in depth. I note without prejudice that this article could easily be merged to The Guild. I also note that this nomination seems quite WP:POINTed, and would suggest that any further contributors consider the article on its merits, rather than the nominator on his merits. --Izno (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem with that being, this nomination even lasting for a week, much less being seriously considered by people, encourages more Point-y noms, particularly by Otter, as it provides the appearance of his tactics WORKING. What should've happened is, quite frankly, a relist. This nom is tainted, because it's not a good-faith nom. It should've been closed days ago and left for the people that ARE trying to improve things to deal with. If it really deserves deletion, it should be nominated purely on its own merits(or lack thereof), and not because one guy wants to delete its entire category off the encyclopedia. Why? Because if it does end up getting deleted because of a point-y nom by a guy on a crusade, it's just going to piss off everyone that actually cares about it. They're going to feel cheated, that it wasn't a legitimate deletion, and that people are condoning point-y behavior. If it doesn't get deleted, Otter's going to feel vindicated in Nom-ing by the fact that it was seriously considered, and will probably nom it again in a month, maybe with a DRV inbetween. Either way, it's ultimately bad. If the nom isn't objective, no one is going to believe the result is either. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand your initial point, and asking for a relist. But I disagree that this nomination is "tainted" simply for what was left in the initial message of nominating the article. He makes the point in the nomination (correctly, IMO, of course) that the article subject lacks notability at this time.
      That said, if you're truly concerned on the behavior of the nominator, I would suggest leaving a note on his talk page at the least and an RFC at the most. I suspect there is room for improvement... and if there isn't, removal is an option, as always (not that I hope it comes to that, of course). --Izno (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: I just accidentally clicked the 'discussion' tab here and discovered that for some reason, someone tried to leave a keep vote on the talk page. The hell? -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2009 (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.