Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Katt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JBW (talk | contribs) at 12:00, 8 November 2012 (malapropism?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

George Katt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor actor Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He made the page to gain notoriety"? Presumably a malapropism, unless you think he deliberately tries to get a bad reputation. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is problematic because the subject of the article is in an editing conflict over content and is currently blocked. The subject has significant coverage in one reliable source: Interview in Greek Reporter. Looking at other coverage, it tends to be mentions in passing in film or theatre reviews, blog interviews, or comments in other non-reliable sources. He has an interview on Time Warner's "On the Beat", which appears to be a cable show. I'm not sure how important that show is, but we don't have an article on it, and there's little information available on the internet. I did note that at the start of the "On the Beat" interview he is described as "not a household name" - however, the interview appears to have been done in 2009. His films do not appear to be notable - the most recent is "In Montauk", made by an unknown independent film company, and directed by the little known Jonathan Spottiswoode. The film has not gathered reviews by any reliable or noteworthy sources. I think the subject is just bubbling under as regards notability, but he is not yet at the stage where a significant number of readers would be looking for an encyclopedia entry on him. The traffic to the article has been very minimal until the recent edit conflict. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to say that this is a definite keep, but neither is there a sufficient lack of evidence to say this is a definite delete. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]