Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lloyd Glover


 * 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  d elete as unverifiable. The one Japanese source looks pretty doubtful as it appears to be seller company. - Mailer Diablo 03:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

David Lloyd Glover

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject of article does notmeet guidelines of WP:V. I can tell he is an artist, just can't find how he is a notable artist Nv8200p talk 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as WP:V. Big  top  00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless verified somehow. Possible conflict of interest. --N Shar 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 02:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Just H 03:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless his notability can be verified.-- danntm T C 14:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but thoroughly rewrite and wikify LHOON 14:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and attempt to find citations. I'm not a fan of deleting articles on WP:V alone, because I think that it could be cited. JCO312 14:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In which case, if it's deleted, it can always be recreated later with proper citations. Generally speaking articles without references run the risk of potential deletion until such time as the references can be provided, even if the information appears to possibly be accurate. Dugwiki 21:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced is bad, unsourced from a single-purpose account raises red flags. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think deleting is wrong in this case. I think this article should be kept.  It should not have been tagged for AfD.  It should have been tagged Citations missing or article.  This is a notable person if the facts check out.  TonyTheTiger 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Article seems to lack notability.  Telly   addict  18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - about 190 Google hits on the name in quotes, but nothing substantial or third-party coming to the fore in a look through them. There's some notability mentioned in the article, but I don't see citations to back it up. If it's deleted but he's notable enough for an article, someone can certainly recreate - with the sources included. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A search turned up nothing on this person. While I understand and admit that the internet doesn't contain all the works of mankind and it's quite possible to be thoroughly notable with no internet presence at all, it's not the job of individual editors to thoroughly search for sources which should be included in the article at creation. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep appears to be verifiable, and the course for missing refs is to mark unreferenced. . WP does not (or should not ) exclude notable figures whose supporters dont know how to write WP articles.DGG 04:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. Articles are frequently deleted in part or in whole because they are unreferenced.  The fact that it might be verifiable simply means that it will be easier to recreate the article properly at a later time.  Deletion due to lack of references doesn't mean the article can't later resurface in a better form. Dugwiki 22:45, 30 January 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.