Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cawley (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Merges and redirects cn be discussed on the appropriate talk pages Fritzpoll (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

James Cawley
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Recreation of previously WP:SNOW-deleted fan-fiction webisode actor who does not meet WP:CREATIVE. His non-profit artistic contributions are not discussed in the media as artistic, but as a "Hey, isn't that weird" human interest story, but WP:NOT. At best, this is a WP:BLP1E that should be merged with Star Trek: Phase II (fan series). THF (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:BIO, though a redirect might be accaptable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If this is an actual recreation of deleted content, then deleted it per CSD. However, creating a new article on the topic != recreation; given citations to NPR and Wired, I doubt this article as it currently exists would have been snowed. I know the Wired article has a bit more information about Cawley; whether sufficient to sustain/improve the article's sources, I don't know -- but, in working at James T. Kirk, I was surprised to see the article does, itself, discuss Cawley's performance (separate from the notable fan series project as a whole). I'll let folks better versed in the standards for actor pages decide. Lastly, at worst I'd suggest this content be merged to the series page (as half suggested by the nominator) -- and a talk-page discussion about a merge/redirect probably would have been a better first step (esp. considering the nominator's role in an ongoing content dispute that involves inclusion of this actor/his role at James T. Kirk).
 * Strong Keep - This is a cynical attempt to short-circuit a consensus and logic he disagrees with in the James T. Kirk article. Indeed, the nominator attempted to remove the info via redirect previously. AGF doesn't mean putting blinders on to clearly cynical behavior, and THF has expressed his clear opposition to the fan-series, using many of the arguments that anons and sock-puppets have. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: are you suggesting that someone made 11,000+ edits in a sockpuppet account over three years so they could influence a debate over a James Tamberlin Kirk article in 2009? Seems implausible, at a minimum.  Please WP:AGF.  There's more than one person in the world who disagrees with you. THF (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am not considering you a sock. I am questioning your cynicism at offering multi-planed forum-shopping to moot an argument for which you cannot find consensus elsewhere in place of abiding by a consensus you personally disagree with. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As best I can tell, your supposed consensus consists of you and a single other editor who is lukewarm about your position, against two Wikiprojects that think you're wrong, at least three editors on the Kirk page who disagree with you, and what is very close to WP:SNOW on this page. How am I forum-shopping?  Where else should I bring an AFD? THF (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are misreading the views in the other wikiprojects, and you might wish to contribute there. Three editors in the Kirk page, two of which were blocked as socks, and one for 3RR - you are not among them. As for forum-shopping, I clarified that elsewhere. You sought to remiove/marginalize the actor in the Kirk artiucle infobox. When that didn't work, you sought to redirect the actor's article. When that didn't work, you removed the actor from the infobox altogether. When that didn't work, you then filed an AfD. Whatever happened to just dealing with not getting your way? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "didn't work"? You reverted my edit, therefore it "didn't work" because I refused to edit-war?  It's not like there isn't a consensus for any of the suggestions I have made; just because you refuse to recognize that consensus doesn't mean I'm in the wrong.  You can have the WP:LASTWORD, which will be further evidence of your ultimate correctness. THF (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per WP:BIO, though a redirect is accaptable.User:Marfoir
 * Comment - James Cawley's William Shatner impersonation of James T. Kirk (down mimicing Shatner's unsual method of delivering lines) is a borderline parody by most accounts. Cawley organized and operates the "production" team that does Phase II, so the fact that he is playing Captain Kirk online was decided by himself and himself alone.  He is just a hobbiest who has received some attention on special interest pieces.  James Cawley was also part of the Star Trek: Hidden Frontier group.  That storyline has not been included in the main Star Trek article, while Phase II (for some unknown reason) has been included.  It makes no sense whatsoever to include fan fiction in the primary bio. Furthermore, none of the other Star Trek characters (except Spock) have the fan-actors listed in the "Portrayed By" box item.  This included all the characters in Phase II, as well as the Next Generation characters that were replayed on Hidden Frontier (see Wesley Crusher for an example). Marfoir (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you cite your interpretation in your first statement "mimicing[sic] Shatner's unsual method of delivering lines"? I don't seem to be able to find a citation for that through a reputable, reliable source. Cawleys's involvement in other fan productions was due to his involvement in the Phase 2 production, existing at the same time as Hidden Frontiers. As the portrayal has received independent sourcing from a non-fan news outlet, its notable. That other characters do not have noted fan portrayals is more a function of a rotating cast list - which doesn't really set a precedent for a notable fan portrayal. I don't follow Hidden Frontier as much; the production values and acting was sub-par (actually, some of it was excruciating to watch). So, show us some support for your statements, please. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought not. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I assume from your question that you haven't actually watched New Voyages? If you haven't, I suggest you watch an episode and then compare it to one of the two fan-fiction speaking cameos Cawley had when he wasn't playing Kirk.  You will notice a clear difference between his Shatner impersonation and the other two characters. Marfoir (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And I ask you again, do you have a citation for that review, or are you adding your own interpretation? If thelatter, it has no place here (as its akin to belly-achin' about whether Kirk or Picard would win a fight, and about as important). - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge/Redirect if there's anything notable and reliably sourced worth saving -- Article itself makes no attempt to demonstrate notability (per Wikipedia standards) outside of Star Trek: Phase II (fan series), which already has an article. DreamGuy (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess those accusations of wikistalking are ringing kinda hollow now, aren't they, DreamGuy? Lol- Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I've been doing a lot of AFD work recently, as I'm sure you are well aware. DreamGuy (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to be at least an assumption of bad faith, Arcayne. Please cool down. Consider this a warning. Cool Hand Luke 17:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and that is why you took the extra-special effort to go to an article youy have never darkened the doorway of before and revert my edit? I am having more than a wee bit of trouble seeing that as an accidental choice, DreamGuy. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * AGF doesn't mean overlooking bad behavior, Luke. The fellow accuses me - incorrectly, mind you - of wikihounding, and then turns around and performs a textbook wikihounding? Perhaps you aren't really seeing the full picture here. Opposing in AfD is one thing. Going to the article and reverting an editor who's had you blocked at least twice before is not deserving of good faith. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a deletion debate, and I see no reason to believe that these are anything but DreamGuy's sincere views on the article. He cites policy, and it seems consistent with votes I've seen him make on other debates. If you have a behavioral issue with an editor (which you may), AFD is not the place to bring it. Cool Hand Luke 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I won't challenge the character of that editor here. My apologies. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge/Redirect, per Dreamguy. This is a WP:BLP1E biography, and that one event does not pass WP:CREATIVE or have lasting impact (that is, it's soft news, and Wikipedia is not news). Cool Hand Luke 17:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete or Merge/Redirect, per Luke's reasoning that this is a WP:BLP1E biography. Cawley is only known for playing Captain Kirk in a few online episodes of a fan-produced Trek. At best, his name should redirect to New Voyages. Erikeltic (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but aren't you the same fellow that was blocked for block evasion and socking in the Kirk article? Sorry, i am not sure socks get a vote here. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I recall, it was either you or EEMIV who accused me of socking after you blocked me for making the very edits that are now in place on the Kirk wiki. But to answer your question, I have been patiently waiting to continue our discussion since you abused your position here and had me silenced.  I don't have much of a history on Wikipedia, but I have been around here & there with some minor edits once in a while.  So no, I am not a sockpuppet. Erikeltic (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, it was not I who blocked you, though I supported it. And yeah, you were socking, but you were blocked and paid for it. Forgive me for taking your opinion with a grain of salt - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject does not need its own article per WP:BLP1E. Support addition of redirect as possible search term. -Atmoz (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - how about two events then? Famous for the fan film series, and a role in the feature film as well. Can you claim as much? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since I do not see how this subject warrants inclusion, esp. given the evidence presented by other editors and the fact that Google News, for instance, reports only one meaningful reference, to an NPR story. A redirect is in place, I guess. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - perhaps you missed the reference to the Wired story as well? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be courteous and sign your name, especially if you made snarky comments like that. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No snarkiness intended; given that you didn't note the Wired or NPR articles, I am guessing you had not used them to base your evaluation. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Cawley meets inclusion guidelines. His work as a producer and actor in Star Trek: New Voyages (which was nominated for a Hugo) allows him to pass WP:N (Entertainers). His small role in the new Star Trek (2009 film) cements this, as does the coverage in NPR. I understand and respect the belief that as a creator of "fan fiction" he is non-notable, but the level of involvement he has had in notable works clearly places him over the line and this article should be kept. JRP (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - By redirecting to the Phase II page, many of the other works James Cawley are involved in that I believe are worthy of a Wikipedia page will be removed. Not only is Cawley the star/creator of Star Trek:Phase II, but also he has a role in the upcoming Star Trek movie and owns the rights and is in the midst of producing an official Buck Rogers web series. - Plinstrot 13:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.48.2 (talk)
 * Comment Looking at 76.103.48.2's history, it would appear that this contributor has a vested interest in Cawley staying in the main section of the bio as he has been almost exclusively editing content related to New Voyages and Cawley. Please remember that a "neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle." Neutral_point_of_view Erikeltic (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're probably right that as someone who has largely edited this page (and maybe created it, I don't remember), my opinions are likely biased. However, I just want to note that I have no relation whatsoever to James Cawley, Star Trek: Phase II, or any fan film productions.  I'm not even a Star Trek fan.  I just came across the project from an article featuring it on the front of Yahoo.com and was amazed at what was being accomplished.  Plinstrot 20:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Plinstrot > I had to comment on what you wrote. First, I appreciate the fact that you are keeping a really cool head about all of this and I applaud you for that.  However, your statement "I'm not even a Star Trek fan" is false as you are one of Youtube's primary promoters of the Star Trek: New Voyages fan franchise.  A word to the wise--don't be deceitful here. Marfoir (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice find. Plinstrot, please review Conflict_of_interest before you make any more false statements about your neutrality on the issue. Erikeltic (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, as I stated, my opinions ARE likely biased, AKA I am not disputing that the fact that I've made edits to this and the New Voyages page and thus my opinions may very well be not neutral/biased, so take them with a grain of salt. But what is this about me being "deceitful" or making "false statements"?  I was being 100% truthful when I said I am absolutely not a Star Trek fan (or Trekie or whatever).  What I am a "fan" of is Star Trek: Phase II/New Voyages.  I don't care about Spock or Kirk, what I am interested is what motivated fans and amitures create both in fan films and online web series.  The reason I have Phase II videos on YouTube is because I uploaded them before any other of their videos were on the site, hoping to help give them exposure.  Disclaimer: I'm also a member of the Phase II message boards, where I know I made posts saying how I'm in no way a Star Trek fan as long as two years ago.  So next time, try and read what someone actually wrote before calling me deceitful.  I'm a fan of the quality of the fan films, but not really one of the sereis it's based on (I'm not even sure if I've ever seen a full episode and I know I've never seen any of the movies).  P.S.  I'm not trying to have an attitude here, just correct Erikeltic and Marfoir's assumptions.Plinstrot 9:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Calling someone's posts "more false statements" is pretty uncivil. Plinstrot's response was fabulously restrained, if you ask me. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Cawley break 1

 * Keep - Notability is established as an actor in Star Trek: New Voyages and Star Trek (2009 film), and as producer of producer in Star Trek: New Voyages and other projects. Esasus (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Multiple people have based their "Keep" !vote on the ground that Cawley is in Star Trek (2009 film). A look at IMDB shows that his "character" is listed behind "Vulcan Bully #2" and doesn't have a name -- I presume is in the movie as a cameo extra, and he may even have added the entry to IMDB himself.  THF (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should start a "Vulcan Bully #2" wiki for that actor and list every second Vulcan bully from each Trek epsiode and movie. Erikeltic (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * James Cawley's role is as a glorified extra in the film (though he was chosen specifically by JJ, who is a fan of Cawley's work on Phase II), but just so you know, the placement on IMDB actor lists is often not indicative of the size of the actors role in the film or project. Plinstrot 21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does he have a speaking role? Yes or no. THF (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know, but if he does, I would imagine it's limited to a word or two in the background. Plinstrot 22:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a non-speaking cameo. See the end notes here: http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/editorial-james-cawley-on-the-new-star-trek-movie/ Erikeltic (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe ease off on the cross-examination, THF; I am guessing you'd likely not take a shine to being questioned that way. And so what if its a non-speaking role. When was your last film performance? Your last major role in a web-series? How about your last gig as an Elvis impersonator? Until then, I think the death of a thiusand cuts is very thinly-disguised anti-fan film discrimination. I get it; I just don't think such behavior belongs here in Wikipedia where good solid content exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)
 * I was on C-SPAN twice last night, with a rerun on C-SPAN2 later today; does that count? And I've had six notable people over at my house for Super Bowl parties.  I don't see the relevance, though: are you seriously suggesting that someone who isn't a film-star isn't in a position to adjudicate the notability of a non-speaking extra role in a movie? THF (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've done some additional searches for sources. In addition to Wired and NPR coverage as described above, I have found these two.
 * Cawley is mentioned in an April 2008 article in a Burlington, VT newspaper which covers his appearance on a talk show ("Late Night Saturday"), but this may be a local show. (Found w/ ProQuest)
 * Cawley is mentioned in Consumer Tribes, a 2007 book. (Found w/ Google Scholar) They are "reverend guests at the StarTrek conventions they once attended as fans.
 * I don't make a position whether these two sources add to his notability. I stand by my argument above. JRP (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If being mentioned in a book is a notable source, I'd mention he's interviewed throughout the book Homemade Hollywood (though as are many less notable fan film creators).
 * Also, a few other potentially noteable things about Cawley are a) he's been featured in a number of lists (at least once at number one) on most influential/important Star Trek fans, b) he provided set pieces to the Enterprise TV show, who in turn named a ship on the series after his home town, c) he actually worked as an assistant costumer on TNG (if I remember correctly), and d) as I mentioned before, his level of production and managing of the series (which I'm sure has been noted in other reputable sources) led the owners of the Buck Rogers property to give him the rights to turn it into a live action show.Plinstrot 8:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please include some sources to back up these claims. Marfoir (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Here are some of the links I found: a), , , b) , c) found on page 245 of Homemade Hollywood by Clive Young, d) , , oh and I forgot he played Captain Kirk's Nephew in the professional fan film Of Gods and Men, which starred actors from every iteration of the series. Plinstrot 12:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With the exception of Wired, these citations appear to be Star Trek publications and one Sci-Fi publications. Bignole stated his feelings on this subject very clearly inWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television.  Furthermore, the NPR piece which keeps being used was a special interest/ "Hey, isn't that weird" piece.  That is part of the reason why we are having this discussion.  Cawley is only notable for being a fan that produces his own Star Trek webisodes, starring himself as the captain. Marfoir (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Cawley's notability is easily established by his connections with Star Trek: Phase II and now with the new feature film (even as an extra, this is not something just anyone gets to do). A simple Google search turns up non-trivial mentions from NPR, Wired, USA Today, The Washington Post, Forbes, The LA Times, The Totonto Star, Chicago Tribune, and many others. Also, for the claim above that his only notability is in connection with his fan series, that is not true. Cawley is producing a new licensed Buck Rogers series for the web, as reported here:,  - with that in addition to the Trek mentions, I have no qualms about keeping the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —THF (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - As other ediors have pointed out (and I will not duplicate their efforts), Cawley's notability seems to be easily and firmly established with multiple media references, as well as a chapter devoted to him and his project in Clive Young's recently published book, Homemade Hollywood. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Cawley's notability has been clearly established. Even a minor role in the upcoming film is significant, because the sole reason for his inclusion in the film is the director's appreciation for his work. Although his success in his "field" is unprecedented, it's no less success and no less notable. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete or Merge/Redirect per DreamGuy and others; nothing of note about this guy that can't go into the articles about the fanseries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)
 * Keep per JRP.Nrswanson (talk) 09:16, 19 March 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.