Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip J. Cutrone

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Cutrone[edit]

Actor with tenuous claims to notability at best. Articles on this person have been speedied six times and deleted by prod once under various titles. Author says he's made his best effort to find references--is it enough? --Finngall ^talk 23:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mild delete (a little more than a weak delete). There was just barely enough to avoid a speedy, but all I could find after an extensive search was a passing mention in a NY Times review of a play and the 2002 Theater Association of New York State award. The award is my only reservation -- gut feeling says this isn't major enough to confer notability, but NY is a hotbed of theater so I could be convinced this is a major award.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: looks like TANYS is an association of non-professional theaters[1]. Not sure what this means as far a notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no articles about the subject to establish notability. The mentions are just that, mentions and are not sufficient to support notability. The award is local in nature and also not significant enough to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep, as the ARE articles that specifically address the subject's notability. The article should be properly expanded and sourced, not deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you point to specific articles turned up by the search that support notability? The NY Times review is only a brief mention, and as as far as I can tell, that's the best source that can be found. All the others are his name in a cast list. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I second that question. If I missed something, I will be happy to revisit my "delete". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinneed (talk • contribs)

Delete- "significant roles in multiple notable" - not yet. "large fan base or a significant "cult" following" - no evidence, and these sort are loud. "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" - no evidence, and it would be covered. Not an unknown performer, but not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinneed (talk • contribs)

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.