Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mytton


 * 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 Xavexgoem (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

David Mytton

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

Some claiming to be the subject of the article applied a Prod template, however this article has previously been up for AFD, so Prod is wrong.

claims: Subject requests deletion due to recent ID fraud based on past article content

Previous AFD discussions were here and here. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * weak delete The previous two AFD discussions came up no consensus and keep, respectively, though the most recent in 2006 should've been relisted, probably. I honestly see a marginal case for notability here at best, and since we're seeming to trend towards deletion when marginal cases come up and the subject requests deletion, weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is indeed a case of ID fraud going on, it should be trivial for the subject to provide OTRS with evidence of that. If that is true, OTRS users can proceed to deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Side note: I can't see how the current article could contribute to ID fraud. It contains no personal details like birthday, SSN or address. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per especially wp:v/wp:blp/wp:rs, and OTRS 2009021910031296. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-19t12:40z


 * A programmer who's written a couple of books. I am not seeing the great loss to an encyclopedia from deleting this article! It's marginal, there's a request not to have it, may as well be gone. Shimgray | talk | 14:30, 19 February 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.