Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Cascone


 * 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. Kevin (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Cascone

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable bit-part actor. Zero references that satisfy WP:RS to establish notability. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable per WP:ENT. WP:ENT's most relevant criterion is "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."  By the article's own admission his roles are not significant.  Also from WP:ENT "has made [..] prolific [..] contributions to a field of entertainment."  Not sure what the standard is for "prolific" but I don't think the article as it currently appears satisfies that criterion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: "Quite unusually for an actor who has been in the business for many years, his roles have remained fairly minor, supporting ones." Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: My defence for keeping this article, which I created, is simply that it does satisfy WP:ENT - "has made [..] prolific [..] contributions to a field of entertainment." The full list of his "contributions" are on IMDB, which the article links to, and the article is intended to be a starting point from which other users may wish to expand and add more references. But as the article currently is, it still satisfies inclusion for a Wikipedia entry.
 * Comment - (a) we're assessing the article on the article, not on its potential. The most important thing to include in a new article is an assertion of notability.  If you're going for the prolific criterion of WP:ENT, something asserting that should appear in the the article.  (b) I'd argue that the word "prolific" in WP:ENT must be read in the sense of "notably prolific".  His 40-odd appearances over 20 years (roughly two roles a year), most of which are television and none of which are themselves notable, are not particularly prolific compared to say, Martin Sheen's 218 credits (which itself counts his 150-odd West Wing episodes as only a single credit). - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:55, 6 October 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.