Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Buza

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. After hidden info was restored, consensus now appears to be to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Buza[edit]

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

The article is 11.5 years old. It is one sentence long. It has an barebones infobox. It has one external link, which is the "always reliable" IMDB. There are no references. Kellymoat (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Redirect to his show.~~ duffbeerforme (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post a wiki link to "his show"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellymoat (talk • contribs)

I don't know for sure, but I assume Duffbeerforme means the X-Men show you linked to in your nomination. That does seem to be his most well-known work of his, looking at the TV Guide listing here. He did 69 episodes of X-Men, and really only 1-5 episodes of anything else listed there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite how the article appeared, it wasn't a 11½-year-old stub. It includes a great deal more information, but a now-banned editor hid most of it in 2016. I removed the comment tags hiding the content and added some references. The article could use more references, but there's no good reason to delete it. - Eureka Lott 01:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple significant roles in notable productions. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2017 (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.