Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Ingleby


 * 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 of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 10:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lee Ingleby

 * Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. &mdash; Mike &bull; 04:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per IMDB listing. Yanksox (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. 68000 Google hits, credited in major films / TV series. Ufretin 05:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yanksox. No substantive reason given to support allegation of insufficient notability. Agent 86 06:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong (if not Speedy) Keep He's a well-known British actor who has also appeared in a major Hollywood film. The article doesn't reflect that, as it doesn't mention his recurring roles in Early Doors and No Angels, nor his significant one-off roles in Spaced and Life on Mars. Allow me to bring the article up to scratch, but he easily fulfils notability requirements. Seb Patrick 10:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yanksox, but expand. --Coredesat 10:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per his major roles and IMDB listing. Well-known actor. You can't judge him on just his appearance as a minor character in Harry Potter. - Mgm|(talk) 10:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I've never seen him, but the article is verifiable (and verified), NPOV and not OR. In addition, the actor has considerable notability. It's a well-written,short article. Inter lingua  talk 13:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's probably worth noting that the original nomination referred to an older version of the article that consisted of little more than a four-item filmography, so I can understand the original nomination even though a click to the IMDb entry would have established the various things he's been in. I've edited it since the nomination, however, to provide the assertions of notability that it was previously lacking. Seb Patrick 14:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Stan Shunpike alone is sufficient for me. snug 21:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seb Patrick's rewrite is enough to establish credibility for mine. Capitalistroadster 21:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep established notability --->|Newyorktimescrossword 22:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|
 * Keep - Multiple verifiable roles which aren't bit parts and one of which is a major film Anand 22:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above Scented Guano 05:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The actor in question has played a role in at least two major motion pictures, and the article provides useful information. There is no reason not to keep this. --JagSeal 23:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.