Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lloyd Lewis

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 Non-admin close, result was keep. GB fan please review my editing 19:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lloyd Lewis[edit]

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

Seems to violate WP:BIO regarding notability: He was once nominated for an award but didn't win, otherwise doesn't appear to have made any substantial contributions to film. There are no online articles or biographical information about him that I can find, including Google News Archives. The twitter feed seems to be it. Foxyshadis^(talk) 04:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.

Keep - I suppose now that it looks like a better article, I'll say keep. Delete - I didn't see any sources that would help a biography on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 02:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep per meeting WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. Rather than being only "once nominated for an award", he has actually had multiple notable nominations. The nominator may have simply missed his PGA Award nominations as "Television Producer of the Year" in 2008, 2009, 2010, amd 2011, his Primetime Emmy Award nominations for 'Outstanding Drama Series' in 2008, 2009, and 2010, and his BAFTA Award nomination for 'Best International Series' in 2009. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MQS, a film bio which has been nominated for PGAs and BAFTAs supported by reliable sources are very clearly notable. It is very common to have low hits on film producers and cinematographers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What was most worrisome in this nomination, is that the notability was really easy to ascertain and to source.[1] Does having missed this before nominating make this worth a speedy keep? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:23, 30 August 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.