Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Scott Cummins

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. There's a clear consensus that he's not notable yet but I was almost swayed by some of the "keep" arguments that suggested that his numerous roles put him over the bar so here's what I'm going to do. If somebody who is not the subject or has been paid by the subject wishes to write a new sourced article from a neutral point of view, it won't be subject to CSD G4. (but of course it may be renominated for deletion) However, if the same article is reposted, it will be deleted. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Scott Cummins

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While doing final cleanup on paid group account and sockmaster, Expewikiwriter, I decided to check through the last few articles, and I discovered that this article was a giant lie. He did not play what could be considered a "lead role" in any of the movies (formerly) listed, and the television shows include such greatly memorable characters as "Bounty Hunter #1" on Numb3rs, and other things of around that calibre. The article created by a paid group account, but it turns out to have gotten the issues because of copyvio (see talk page) - large chunks of it were copy-pasted from the actor's website, where the actor greatly inflated his importance. I think the copyvio is removed, at least, but we are left with an actor who doesn't have a huge amount of coverage. Yes, there is some material out there, but it's mostly trivial coverage, with a few local newspapers interviewing him occasionally. Good sources are rather hard to come by. Now, he does have a some notability as a sportsperson who played for a professional team, though he was forced to retire in a year, and played one of the most obscure roles on the team; however, combined with the possibility of remaining copyvio, and the rather poor quality of what's been created, not to mention at least a little trouble with WP:NRVE, I see little point keeping this. 86.** IP (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He was a pro athlete and has received significant local press coverage, so there are reliable sources (even if they're not online). He may merit a short factual article, although the vast list of every TV role he's done is a bit much. Is there any potential copy-vio content left? The promotional content is by and large removed (I took out an unsourced claim about him being praised for his versatility). --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the source I know was copied, it should be cleaned up. However, the source was uncredited, so there might be another. 86.** IP (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: based on a search of NFL.com [1], it appears that he never actually played in the NFL. cmadler (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The claim in the lead that he was among the best college punters was an exaggeration—it was based on his own college coach's claims. I've removed it from the lead, as well as the claim that he played professionally (he only appears to have tried out for a team). This article is a bit dubious based on my findings, the nominator's concerns, and reference that are solely offline articles that I do not have access to (perhaps others do).—Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say his football involvement is a passing mention in the article, but notability is established through his extensive work in television and movies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there evidence that these are significant roles to satisfy WP:NACTOR? Or do exisiting sources meet WP:GNG?—Bagumba (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any movie roles of any significant size. 86.** IP (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:Here is link to offline articles (5 pages) http://www.gregoryscottcummins.com/clippings.html Salmodavl (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC) — Salmodavl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock.[reply]

Comment Throwing aside that Salmodavl has been blocked as a sockpuppet, the links provided to the offline articles (assuming they are legit) seem to satisfy WP:GNG requirement for multiple sources of significant coverage. However, lacking any evidence that the acting roles are major to satisfy WP:NACTOR, the subject seems WP:Run-of-the-mill. Also, the sources are from local papers from his hometown in Contra Costa and from Hawaii where he went to college. While it shouldnt be automatically discounted because WP:ITSLOCAL, I do wonder if based on the ROTM nature if these are Wikipedia:Independent sources that are discriminating or is this an example of a local feel-good story. This could be a case to invoke the presumed clause of GNG which says "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." I will abstain from !voting unless a compelling argument sways me.—Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I still say it's enough for me, but I'm not devoted to the topic. It wouldn't be the first time I've been on the short end of an AFD discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His football career is not notable and doesn't warrant an article. The commercial section should be deleted as that is trivial. He does have an extensive movie and TV career. He may have played in sub, B movies and as a"guest" actor on TV series, but there appears to be enough to cross the threshold.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 May 2012‎

My concern isnt that they are B-movies, but I'm unsure if the roles are big enough that he isnt another run-of-the-mill actor with insignificant parts.—Bagumba (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the sports nor the acting career is notable by our usual standards. One ofthe reasons for the current dislike of paid editing is the tendency of paid editors like the one involved here to make a great deal in appearance out of what is really very little. We can best deal with that not by prohibiting paid editing, which is impossible, but keeping a careful watch on what they do. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The longer I've looked at this article and thought about it, the more I'm convinced that he does not merit an article. He does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON since he never played in a pro game. He does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR since he doesn't seem to have had significant roles in multiple notable films, nor does he have a large fan base or cult following, nor has he made a special contribution to the field of acting. He's probably close to the line on meeting WP:GNG, but as Bagumba pointed out, the coverage seems fairly WP:Run-of-the-mill. cmadler (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my earlier comments at 18:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC), person does not meet [[WP:NGRIDIRON] or WP:NACTOR. With no evidence that the acting roles were anything significant, even if numerous, the actor is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails the presumption of notability of WP:GNG, which allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." The article was created by a blocked sockpuppet Expewikiwriter, and this AfD was commented on by a related sockpuppet, Salmodavl. While articles should be based on the merits of the content and the available sources and not judged solely by who created them, the fact that I was leaning towards "delete" and and the sockpuppet investigation "suggest promotional paid editing" convinces me to commit to deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2012 (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.