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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Uranowitz

[edit]

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

Article on a Broadway actor. Claims notability through starring in one Broadway show, and winning a "Carnegie Award"; but Google doesn't turn up many articles on him, and I can't even find a cite for him winning a "Carnegie Award." This would seem to exclude him per WP:NACTOR. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per being an improvable stub article on a theater actor who meets ~~who would meet WP:ANYBIO though that Carnegie Award (let's dig deeper for sourcing), but even without that we have him meeting~~ WP:ENT and WP:GNG through even his few roles being written of (in various levels of non-trivial depth) in multiple secondary sources...some more reliable[1] than others.[2] Being improvable means we do so, and not delte based upon current state. And no, he is not the most notable ever... but he is just notable enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did look at the results, but I didn't see anything that met source guidelines. For the first link (news search results), they are mostly play reviews that mention the actor's name. BroadwayWorld appeared to have something more substantial but it was on their message board, and the credits for Mr. Uranowitz consist of only two shows, one on Broadway and one a touring show. The main google search results has [3] which is an interview, but it appears to be somewhat of a blog-news site. I don't see this meeting WP:ENT/WP:GNG right now, IMHO. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its weak notability, sure... but it's still notability under ENT and GNG, guidelines which tells us that available sources need not be solely about the individual. And even the lesser of the RS provide information to confirm his works and expand the article. Under WP:ENT it is neccessary that the work itself be the recipient of enough SIGCOV to be determined as notable. It's not as if he were a total unknown with no coverage at all. I've opined deletes for plenty of those. Rent has the required notability just as does Baby It's You! (specially when it was taken to Broaday). I've been quite busy of late in the real world, but I'll give the article some personal attention later today. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ He is notable enough.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ User:Juristicweb, User:The Bushranger is essentially suggesting that you expand on your comment... IE: Why do you think Uranowitz is notable enough? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: This editor's first !vote stricken per his modified stance below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 03:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks everyone for reminding me to elaborate on the reason for keeping this article. I looked at several online articles on Brandon Uranowitz published by reputable sources such as http://broadwayworld.com/people/Brandon-Uranowitz/ and http://www.hercampus.com/school/nyu/nyu-graduate-brandon-uranowitz-makes-broadway-debut crediting him with performance(s) on Broadway. These articles and other articles I found range from interviews with Uranowitz to newspapers looking into his personal and professional backgrounds. The argument to delete the articles appears to suggest that Uranowitz is not notable enough. Uranowitz may not be Marlon Brando, but it seemed to me that he, as an active actor on the Broadway who has received some attention from the press, deserved to have his page on Wikipedia.--Juristicweb (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In light of new links and restructuring of the article by MichaelQSchmidt, I change my vote from Keep to Strong Keep. Evidence of notability is present as I referenced links above and also considering the links provided by MichaelQSchmidt. I believe playing roles on TV shows and Broadway shows and coverage of Uranowitz's acting roles and career by various reputable websites established notability.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, I have stricken your first "keep", as you have modified it immediately above. While editors may offer multiple comments and responses in AFD discussuions, there is only one !vote per customer... and thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:00, 3 September 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.