Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Dunn (Science)


 * 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 delete as a hoax. GraemeL (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

David Dunn (Science)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of importance or notability according to WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --   Luke      (Talk)   03:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It should not be deleted as most facts can be found in the references I will add more now. More references, he is quite famous for various reasons in Australia as proven by the references. PaTCat0 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC) PaTCat0
 * Keep it, it has no reason to be deleted. It is rather helpful. 04:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.13.25 (talk)
 * Delete. Bravo for teaching for 45 years, but that's not enough. Speedy delete as a hoax. Occasional test dummy for Australasian New Car Assessment Program? Plus the boxing feat questioned by Tigerboy1966. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources provided barely mention this person, much less establish his notability, and I don't even see any evidence provided yet that they are necessarily about the same individual. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merely being a teacher, professor, soccer player or boxer does not quality for notability. I am unable to find coverage which would demonstrate that the person in question passes the GNG. Speedy delete: I only just noticed the ridiculous claims after reading Tigerboy1966's post; the article is most likely a hoax. Till I Go Home (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete So he's 7'3'' and he's beaten Kostya Tszyu. Either WP:HOAX, nonsense or a bit of both. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree the article needs reindement but it is very factual. 220.236.248.38 (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment can we move this one along please. It's probably too silly to cause serious offence, but this is WP:BLP and we have to be v. strict. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete under the WP:CSD criteria, after I removed the blatantly untrue statements and the unreferenced personal info, there is nothing notable at all left over. The-Pope (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference are fine actually READ all of them, you're acting like children. Read the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.248.38 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say that your accusing other Wikipedia editors of "acting like children" is likely to sway my recommendation in favor of keeping this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree. Accusing other Wikipedia editors of acting like children isn't exactly assuming good faith. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy. Let's move on. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree.

PaTCat0 (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete "greatest man alive" caption strongly suggests it to be a hoax. Mythpage88 (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've requested speedy deletion, because the original author has kept including unrelated content and obvious nonsense to the article. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2011 (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.