Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey John 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.

The result was delete. The requests to supply sources went unfulfilled. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Geoffrey John Davies

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable business man and violinist who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a This is s GNG fail. Furthermore a before search turns up nothing concrete. They are a business person and fail to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Needless to say WP:SIGCOV isn’t met Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Someone deleted a lot of key information in this article and, for example, a New York Times feature article on this person.  I've re-added it with appropriate references. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional article, coverage lacks depth. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but need some more references to back the content. This is my opinion. Thanks. Billyatthewheels (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment — So basically you are saying sources exist but are not in the article? Fine, could you point me to these sources? Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - paid-for spam. MER-C 10:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, sources are barely enough for notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment — Please do you have the sources that substantiate they have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them? If not you are !voting without substantiating with WP:RS. Basically, you are saying they are notable without proof, I’m sure that falls somewhere under. WP:ATA Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't see that there is any significant news here. Boredathome101 (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - insufficient sources to meet WP:BIO. Deus et lex (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2021 (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.