Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Loehr

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The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 22:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Peter Loehr

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Peter Loehr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Mr Loehr is likely notable, and there may be scope to write an encyclopaedia article in this space. But the hopeless puffery currently at this title is not a useful starting point for that article. I invite the community to consider deleting it, without prejudice to a proper encyclopaedia article being created later. —S Marshall T/C 06:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 06:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment I reverted the article back to its last version before it became a copy and paste from imdb/copyvio. Puffery is gone....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• It's certainly better, but is it really puffery-free now?—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep: I deleted everything and rewrote it, it's now a stub but I do intend on expanding it later. Meets GNG per refs in article and likely 3 or 4 in WP:CREATIVE Justiyaya 21:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you. I'm now content for this to be closed as "keep".—S Marshall T/C 21:50, 4 June 2022 (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.