Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent M. Ward


 * 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. without prejudice to incubation or future recreation.  MBisanz  talk 21:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Vincent M. Ward

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources (see WP:GNG, WP:BASIC). The roles — largely unsubstantiated — fall very far short of WP:NACTOR. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the subject has met WP:NACTOR. He had a recurring role on the television show The Walking Dead and has substantial amount of work prior to receiving the role. Silver Buizel (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What role was substantial? What role was significant in the grand scheme of what series? JFHJr (㊟) 19:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He played Oscar on seven episodes of The Walking Dead. Silver Buizel (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 7 out of 34 to me indicates information on this actor probably best belongs on the Walking Dead article, in the Characters section (recurring, clearly not a main character at all). Not a substantial role; zero biographical coverage by reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can find no significant coverage about him. In particular, if his recurring role in Walking Dead was is significant, this should be established with coverage in reliable sources.  I can find no such coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like he mostly worked as an extra or appeared in minor roles. I can't locate significant coverage/roles or evidence of a large fanbase. Hekerui (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I feel WP:ENT is met, specially as notability is not a popularity contest to see who has the most press coverage. See WP:GNGACTOR.   Ward's having  more-significant roles in television projects and  smaller roles in multiple notable film's is verifiable. While the WP:GNG is the easiest or laziest (no offense intended) manner through which to allow presumption of enough notability to merit an article, it is not the only way... else there would be no need for any of the various common sense WP:SNG's in the first place. Though it makes our task in informing our readers more difficult, we do not "punish" those perhaps-notables for keeping a low media profile.... But as Ward himself states in a 2012 interview, that despite the non-disclosure agreements he signed (production's means to keep plots secret and stifling spoilers and related coverage) he feels The Walking Dead is the true beginning of recognition for his acting career", perhaps we can incubate this for a while as he now finally gets the coverage he is due.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - In what way is WP:ENT satisfied? You link to the NY Times is a directory entry that provides no information that I can see that details his roles that would allow one to determine that the roles are significant.  Relying on the information in the article, he has a bunch of single episode appearances in TV shows with only Starter Wife and Walking Dead being an exception.  The remainder of the links are to event announcements.  That includes the pqarchiver article which is available online here mentioning his name in passing in a list of celebrities.  How are these articles demosntrating that the inclusion criteria for entertainers is satisified?  They certainly fail to establish anything under WP:GNG. -- Whpq (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The verifiability of significant roles in mutiple notable productions does not require that such verifiability itself be WP:SIGCOV. But as I concluded above, and in not !voting a "keep", userfication or incubation allows the article to be improved OUT of mainspace.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, but none of the material you provided proves that any of the roles are significant. -- Whpq (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: Is the incubator at all active? If it is I see no reason not to incubate but I suspect it would be in a perpetual purgatory. Incubate or delete per WP:NOTYET. J04n(talk page) 11:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is somewhat. I know that I try to check in there a few times a year, but I pretty much focus on the movie, actor, and book entries because that's what I'm more familiar with. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   13:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Same here, as I keep an eye on those topics with which I have familiarity.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:13, 4 April 2013 (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.