Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan George

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 keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan George

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

The article is unsourced and it fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided come from the Internet Movie Database, which is not a reliable source.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source that says that George won a Drama Desk Award is a dead link. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has sources and subject is an award-winning actor so clearly meets notability guidelines. Tassedethe (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, which calls for multiple significant roles. There's no evidence of that here. Even in the one film for which the article states the subject had a lead role, the article for the film itself doesn't corroborate it (the subject's role isn't mentioned at all in the plot synopsis). NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He won a prominent award for acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable, even considering the award, for the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per John Pack. I have added some additional information and sources to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What an awful, awful nomination. If you're unsure of the notability of an American theater figure, the first step should be to check the NYTimes archives, widely accessible though most English-language libraries. The subject is a well-known, well-regarded actor, director and producer whose work was often reviewed there. There's also no doubt he won the Obie Award in the debut run of a Pultizer winning play [1], which you'd think would make this a slam dunk, but fewer !voters here seem to value a Drama Desk- and Obie-winning actor more than a porn performer named Superslut of the Year by a batch of mostly pseudonymous guys who work mostly for porn vendors and promoters. It's just horrific to see nominations like this made and garnering support. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2016 (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.