Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Vincent


 * 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   delete. Tone 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Craig Vincent

 * – ( View AfD View log )

nn working actor, just no external notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - can't see anything in the article that demonstrates that he meets the notability guidelines. The first few pages of google & gnews archives don't throw up any significant coverage. His IMDb page doesn't seem to show any major roles or awards.-- Beloved Freak  11:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  --  Beloved  Freak  11:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliable sources provided or found = not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE - Citations are duly noted and the article has already been deemed to be "within the scope of the WikiProject Biography guidelines" 70.180.248.167 (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Craig, one of our guidelines for including articles is the notability guideline. If you want the article kept, you will have to show that the subject meets that guideline. Has there been significant coverage of you in reliable, independent, secondary sources? Do you meet any of the criteria listed here? Or here?-- Beloved Freak  09:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Belovedfreak, when you refer to "one of our guidelines" it almost seems like you're speaking in the first person and that YOU are one of the administrators and/or main designers of this website. If you examine the External Links section of this article, it clearly states where the information was gathered from (i.e. The New York Times and the Internet Movie Data Base) and in the "Discussion" section of this article, it clearly states that the article has been deemed to be "within the scope of the WikiProject Biography"...the website's words, not mine.  Why are you so preoccupied with this particular article and its subject?  I'm curious as to why you (and all of the others who've added similar comments above) seem to be so determined to have this biography deleted. Your idea and interpretation of the "guidelines", "significant coverage of me" and whether I "meet any of the criteria listed can be construed as just your mere opinion and NOT to be of any substantial significance and can be debated forever given the wide open nature and wording of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. If you're asking me if I meet the requirements set forth in Wikipedia's guidelines, I think I have for certain.  If you feel that this information is NOT correct, then I would suggest you rent a copy of Martin Scorsese's Casino and any and all of the films/TV Shows listed on this Subject's credits which are clearly listed on the Internet Movie Data Base's website and see for yourself firsthand before making a judgement call on who has the right to be included or not in Wikipedia  70.180.248.167 (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My reply was getting a bit long and off-topic, so I've moved part of it to User talk:70.180.248.167. Regarding the notability of the subject, no one is questioning the fact that you have been in a (or several?) film(s). That alone is not enough to be included in Wikipedia, so credits will not be enough to demonstrate "notability". It's not about having a "right" to be included — please don't take it personally — it's about what is considered "encyclopedic" according to guidelines that have been drawn up over several years by the Wikipedia community.-- Beloved Freak  11:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note: "within the scope of WikiProject Biography" just refers to the fact that we have groups of editors who collaborate, called "Wikiprojects". As a biography, the article comes under the scope of the biographies Wikiproject; it helps editors keep an eye on articles of their interest. It's not a stamp of approval in any way.-- Beloved Freak  11:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Craig, you've already had posted to your talk page a number of links that explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I urge you to review them so that you gain an understanding how we do things here.  That being said, Articles for deletion is a section specifically set aside to review questionable articles which appear to violate one or more of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion.  Debating these issues is our job here, and we handle around a hundred articles a day; you're not being singled out.  Decisions are made by consensus, more or less, which is why our opinions do hold significance; most of us are veteran editors familiar with the relevant policies and their applications.  You're far better off gaining the same knowledge, rather than tell us that we don't know what we're talking about.   Ravenswing  20:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I could have told you, Vincent, this encyclopaedia was never meant for one as beautiful as you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus-duh it took me two days to get that-I'm getting old! Thank you for the laugh!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Belovedfreak is speaking the way a lot of us do. This is a collaborative project running mainly through consensus, and they are 'our guidelines'. They aren't developed just by administrators or 'main designers'. As he/she says, they've been drawn up by the community. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not believe the subject has met the guidelines for inclusion per notability. His appearance in Casino is not notable enough. There were many people involved in that film, why would Mr Vincent be so notable (notable in a wiki-sense) S.G.(GH) ping! 11:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, created by a WP:SPA, typical newbie error: lack of sources and no evidence of notability. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it was created by a now-banned publicist.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom, non-notable per WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Beloved. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as there is no evidence that Mr Vincent meets the general inclusion criteria for an encyclopedia at this time, i.e. he appears not to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable published sources, such as books and newspapers, that are indepedent of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 20-Mule-Team Delete: When the article describes as the role by which the subject is best known an extra role billed forty slots down, it's a sure sign of epic fail of WP:BIO. Fails the GNG, obvious COI issues.   Ravenswing  20:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet notability requirements. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You've already voted, and you've already been warned about incivility.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And the conflict of interest is obvious. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2011 (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.