Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David West (tycoon)

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. Sr13 (T|C) 09:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David West (tycoon)

David West (tycoon) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Assertion of notability made, but the external links do not make good sources. Hard to verify via Google because there are many people named David West. Is being extremely rich good enough for inclusion? Personally, I would like some reliable sourcing, cleanup, and more material added, otherwise delete. →EdGl 00:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete He does exist & I think the article is essentially accurate, except for far too many 000s. I think he's worth closer to £9 million, or maybe 90, than 900. He's just your average millionaire businessman, so off he goes. Johnbod 01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think being extremely rich is a good indication that there are likely to be sufficient sources to establish notability, but I don't think he necessarily qualifies. In any case, based on the BBC story, I think an article could be better written on the film, for which there are secondary sources in the form of reviews. The article's rudimentary text is a copyvio from there, if we needed another reason for deletion)DGG 01:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I now realize that thiswas not grounds for deletion if the notability could be shown otherwise. DGG 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, while not as rich as the article claims (he is not on the Times Rich List, so somewhere under £70M), he has been the subject of a documentary and there seem to be several articles on him[1], indicative of some notability. Nightclub entrepreneurs are likely to be noticed more than widget entrepreneurs. --Dhartung | Talk 01:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep article needs a serious overhaul, but there are multiple articles from reliable sources. the_undertow ^talk 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep while there are only a few sources the BBC coverage shows that some people might be searching for more information. Arbustoo 03:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Johnbod's comments. Jmlk17 07:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)d

• Weak keep- some notability, but not much. Eaomatrix 09:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable, just barely. Enough media coverage to meet WP:NN. Coren 00:46, 30 April 2007 (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.