Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Anthony Ince

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. Cirt (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Anthony Ince

Cecil Anthony Ince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Jack of all trades, master of none. Looks like an autobiography. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet the

WP:N guideline.Intelligentsium (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok all, This all is refferenced. Whats the violation? Those links have been deleted. --Cecil Anthony Ince 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs)

Delete Fails notability requirements and is obviously autobiographical. Beach drifter (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not Notability? Is not the Kansas City Star a Reliable source? Is not the Missouri secretary of State a Reliable source?--Cecil Anthony Ince 23:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs)

I suggest you read the notability guidelines,

WP:POLITICIAN Beach drifter (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I have read the notablity guidelines, and i have had much press in the state of missouri. I provide those links and i cite those Sources. I have been appointed to many different political party positions. I have proformed on stage publicly with advertizing in missouri and texas. Yes i think i meet the guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs) 23:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the guidelines well, you would understand that you need significant coverage from reliable sources. You don't have anything close to that, and you're not doing yourself any favors adding yourself to a ton of lists and creating a dozen redirects to the article. Beach drifter (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It have has significant coverage and all are reliable. The Kansas City Star, The St. louis Post Dispatch, local radio, local news papers all over missouri. I have even been on Fox News. That is significant and reliable. Do I need to audition for comedy central or co-star with Robin Williams??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A one or two line blurb with your name it is not at all significant. A press release you sent in to the paper is not significant. Luckily the guideline breaks it down for us: Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

Let me say that i had full pages write ups in many papers. a full leaghth Television interview. A large underground following that spans over two states. I have preformed on stage over 150 times.

I can't beleive you beleive Its not notible, or that they are reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Request remedy to this AFD --Cecil Anthony Ince 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs) [reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete, references lack sufficient detail to establish notability. CliffC (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an obvious non-neutral
  WP:COI. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Second suggestion, keep but block user from editing his own article. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: is that even technically possible? – ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, read
  Wikipedia:Topic bans. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - coverage is not of sufficient detail to be considered substantial. Much of the coverage is mere mentions or blogs and press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what looks like self-promotion. In any case not meeting
  WP:N. Rd232 ^talk 22:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Does not meet the
  WP:BIO requirements, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Not a musician, comedian or politician with any significant coverage. Let's wait until there's some proper coverage of notable achievements. Fences and windows (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.