Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Letts-Davies


 * 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.

Daniel Letts-Davies
The result was   Delete. I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW and WP:BLP; it's astonishing that a fifteen-year old who was written an operating system cannot be shown to be notable, and therefore, I agree that it appears to be a hoax. The article may be recreated if reliable sources are forthcoming. Rodhull andemu  16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy removed. Unsourced BLP. Unlikely that claims are true about this 15 year old. Refs could solve that problem. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

this person supplied my school with this operating system. I will try to find the article in the local paper by tommorow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banker123 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)  — Banker123 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - article fails verifiability. A google web search turns up 3 results of which 2 are Facebook and the third is an online petition.  I could find no evidence for the existence "Defeen" as a rival to Microsoft Word.  In fact, I could find no evidence of Defeen at all.  And at 9,000 units, as claimed in the article, it isn't at all significant in terms of market share.-- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete He's 15. If he was a wealthy businessman inventing things, there'd be more ghits. Apart from which, Microsoft Word is not an operating system. My original tag was for being nonsense. I stand by that, with Bio as a backup. Peridon (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - The article is not nonsense as described by G1. The article not gibberish or incherent.  G1 specifically excludes "implausible theories, or hoaxes".  As for A7 (bio), it specifically states that it "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source" which again this article does clearly assert significance.  I've seen clamouring for speedy deletion that turned into keeps.  But this is only possible with wider editor review, and that is why the speedy deletion criteria are deliberately strict and narrow.  -- Whpq (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - This article should have been speedily deleted as originally proposed three times. However, it appears that the author has used a WP:Sockpuppets (User:Banker123) to remove the speedy deletion tag.  The nominator should have allowed this to be deleted in a speedy process as the important criteria for moving from Speedy Deletion to AFD is a "credible claim" of notability.  If there is absolutely no evidence in any search engine to confirm the claims made in an article (referring to the person or product), it is probably not credible.  While I also tend to err on the side of AFD, given the use of sockpuppets to remove the speedy tag I am surprised this article made it to AFD. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball Delete', relax; no irreparable harm done: I tagged it with "hoax". - 7-bubёn >t 23:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2009 (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.