Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Miller (Czech actor)

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The result was KEEP; nomination withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Miller (Czech actor)[edit]

Withdrawing nomination now that much secondary source coverage has been found and all claims hav been substantiated. I'm not sure how I missed it really! Dr. B certainly deserves a rescue barnstar. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 13:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsubstantiated claims. No secondary source coverage found. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would seem to pass WP:ENT with the number of credits he has (at least 90 according to IMDB). Lugnuts (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' but only if references are added. IJA (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMBD is not a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 17:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs added and AMG link included to back-up IMDB claims to pass WP:ENT. Lugnuts (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets requirements. Why was this relisted??♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment It was presumably relisted because the only source provided was IMDB (unreliable), and the other user said Keep but only if references are added (which they haven't been yet). I'm still vouching for delete because nobody has yet provided any suitable references to assert notability -how does it meet requirements-? Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 12:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"but only if references are added (which they haven't been yet)." I added a couple of references straight away! And now should be a straight-forward keep thanks to the excellent work from Dr B. Lugnuts (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Ignore my last comment. I didn't actually look at the improved article, just the deletion discussion, and missed your comment, Lugnuts. I am withdrawing the nomination. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 13:39, 27 March 2011 (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.