Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Caldecott


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nick Caldecott

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No reliable sources, no reason at all to think it's notable. Was prodded by someone who tried to Google around for info and could find anything. Prod notice was removed by -- you guessed it -- the regular guy who goes around removing prod tags without any justification. It's too bad he wastes our time by forcing AFDs on such clearcut cases. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep : I found (lots of) sources which all directly name the subject without a great deal of difficulty, which might have been an idea for the nom to have done before bringing this here.  one brave  monkey  17:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those come even CLOSE to meeting our standards for establishing notability, as they are all trivial minor mentions. The fact that someone was in a production in no way makes them notable than any other minor actor in the world. And maybe *you* should learn about our rules on such things before chiming in. DreamGuy (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Steady on, no need for that. Those sources are supporting various references to appearances Caldecott has made and as such are valid sources and verify the claims made in the article. He has had direct reference made to his performances in several well-known newspapers and theatrical journals, something I think at least lends to the possibility of further work on the article rather than deletion. Also, I think it's bad form to delete another editor's attempt at rescuing the article during an AFD discussion, especially if you're the nominator.  one brave  monkey  19:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Those soures are reliable and verify claims made in article that the person has been in some shows, but so have millions of other people. You need to prove NOTABILITY. Otherwise as sources they are completely useless, and do nothing to justify a keep vote. DreamGuy (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with you that millions of people have had write-ups like that, but concede that notability (even without caps) needs a bit more of a push. I think it's a Weak Keep for me, but I'm still convinced that it's not a clear-cut case for deletion. As an aside, I'm not impressed with other editors' actions either, but dirty laundry is not to be washed at AFD.  one brave  monkey  07:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: I was the person who put Prod on it. Since then the article has improved and is much closer to being acceptable. (The article had previously been a mess of trivia and promotional drivel.) The references provide verifiability of the roles played but I still feel that sufficient notability has not been demonstrated. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - :The nominator, DreamGuy, is clearly referring to me in his opening comments, so I will take a moment of my time to respond to his rant against me. The nominator is an editor who is upset with me because I disagreed with him on another article that was successfully rescued from his diligent efforts to have it deleted. Since then he has been nominating virtually every article that I have edited, reviewed, or rescued. He constantly asserts that my rescue is “disruptive” or against the “clearest of cases” for deletion; yet in the vast majority of discussions my rescue is supported by the consensus. In this article he is at it again. His assertion that this article is one of the "such clearest cases" of lack of notability is only a clear case of the shameful bluster of an antagonistic editor. The above and following discussion of divergent opinions will attest to the fact that different editors have different viewpoints. It is my opinion that this article is worthy to Keep, and that is why I removed the Prod in the first instance. Quite frankly, I am growing weary of DreamGuy's childish rants against me and other editors (such as against Onebravemonkey above) who disagree with him.  I respectfully suggest that DreamGuy should get a life : don’t make every discussion and argument, and please stop your immature and repeated attempts to prove me wrong; because, you know what? It doesn’t matter. Sometimes it may be that a discussion will demonstrate that an article that I tried to rescue falls short of a favourable consensus, but in the vast majority of the times my actions are justified by the consensus. And at no time have I improved an article, added references, or removed a Prod just to “waste everyone’s time”. This article should be discussed with the view to finding a consensus, and with the knowledge that it is brought to you by a nominator who has a huge chip on his shoulder. Esasus (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Esasus, please be strongly reminded that WP:Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles.--Boston (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You think EVERY article is worthy of keeping, apparently, and don't bother to give any valid reasons why... and when called on it you become abusive. That about sums up your contributions. And, frankly, yes, that wastes everyone's time and makes Wikiepdia far less useful than it could be. DreamGuy (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply - Your comment that I think EVERY article is a worth keeping clearly false, and another example of your bluster and overstatements. I strongly object to your false characterizations.Esasus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - It should be noted however, that while it is your (and any editor's) right to contest any PROD for any reason, there is a reasonable expectation that the person contesting the PROD will do something to address the concerns put forth on the proposed deletion nomination. You fail to do that rather continuously. So you leave people no choice but to take the articles to AfD. Whether that is a problem in the "clogging up teh tubes" sense or a backlog issue with sysops who must close the AfDs is not something for me to theorize on. Regardless of that angle, I have observed that you frequently don't make any efforts to rescue articles once they're on AfD, other than vote "keep" based on who-knows-what guideline or policy. I think we all agree that your actions are well-intentioned, but sometimes they're just slightly annoying. I would be the first to thank you for rescuing an article I PRODed. But simply removing the PROD without addressing the concern for which it was added to begin with isn't something I (or any other editor) tend to appreciate. The nominator of this AfD is correct in that we might as well have a bot that goes through the dated PROD category removing tags and leaving "this entity is notable" comments without actually doing anything to improve the content itself. I am not attacking you for doing this, just questioning the methodology :) This is probably not the best place for this, but we can discuss on someone's talk page if you want. Cheers. § FreeRangeFrog 00:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - The nom has made my removal of the PROD a focus of this discussion. I am honour bound to reply to your comments. First I need to appologise to everyone for telling DreamGuy to "get a life". Although I was taunted, it was still uncivil of me to respond with such a personal attack. On the other note, I note that wiki policy does not require an editor to give reason for the removal of a PROD; but nonetheless, if I am rescuing an article I will almost always improve the article before removing the Prod, and if I remove the PROD without improvements (which is rare) I almost always state my reasons. Concerning the article in question, prior to removing the PROD I edited the article and added an external link to the subject's page at IMDB. Esasus (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears the article is trying to draw on the notability of the venue to pass it on to the actor. If he is at all notable, it comes from association with a theatre company rather than making a couple of appearances at a venue. - Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, I've shuffled it around a bit and found a couple more refs. Not having any luck identifying independent theatre companies that he was part of, but it seems he was a resident at the Royal Exchange for a bit... Anyway, I think that's me done with it! :D  one brave  monkey  12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete = I'm not seeing the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" (from WP:ENTERTAINER) for this fellow. It seems to be a string of starring or supporting roles in small or mid-range performances.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep on the (non-policy) feeling that a bunch of poor indications of notability might weigh as much as a couple good ones. Comment: Let's avoid deletionist/inclusionist partisanship and forge ahead. --Boston (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - the play reviews mention him and note his performance with a single line, but without one substantial article about him, or more substance to review of his role within a review of a play, this falls short of what is needed for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject appears to be a working actor&mdash;indeed a talented one&mdash;who simply hasn't garnered sufficient recognition to meet the notability criteria. References to him&mdash;even the flattering ones&mdash;are all passing mentions, with no significant coverage as required by the guidelines. With luck, he'll get more than trivial mentions in teh future and be an appropriate subject for inclusion in the future. Bongo  matic  01:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plenty of acceptable references. That he has few entries at IMDB is because he works the stage, not the screen. Well known in UK. Err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. Proxy User (talk) 18:42, 7 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.