Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Geter

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 April 17.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. BLP without reliable sources means mandatory deletion. Sandstein 08:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Geter

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable actor, only using IMDB as a source. Deprodded by another editor, but no sources added. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was only deprodded because the IMDb link rules out WP:BLPPROD but for some reason you dont believe it. Why dont you ask at the help desk? If it was a normal prod I wouldn't have deprodded it, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire IMDb is junk. It is not a reliable source. If we at all respected our own BLP rules, we would have "only IMDb as a source" as grounds for speedy deletion that could only be overcome by adding some non-IMDb source to the article. We have never accepted that every person who has ever had a credited role is notable, and that is what this mindless use of IMDb is leading us towards. We need to act to get rid of these junk articles. The fact that they have survived over a decade is a blemish on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The subject is notable, even though the sourcing is poor. Better sourcing would improve the article to "keep" standards.TH1980 (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2020 (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.