Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith 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 Keep, majority was keep + 'short' is not a solid reason for deletion. Expanding on article would be good. WP:SNOW (Non-admin closure)--Chip123456 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Keith Davies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

very short Calu2000 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Being a stub is not a valid rationale for deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gene93k, shortness is not a deletion rationale. Looking at possible deletion rationales, the articles passes notability requirements of WP:POLITICIAN particularly when coupled with related reasons why he has been in the news (although there of course shouldn't be undue weight on this in the article).  There's room for improvement but I'm not sure that the Arnaud Amalric approach to article improvement works. BencherliteTalk 20:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep - Absolutely no valid rationale has been stated to remove the article from the encyclopedia, per WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep—No reason to delete + his status as a member of the National Assembly for Wales indicates that he is pretty clearly notable. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - as above welsh (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I would have expected MLAs, like MPs to be notable as a matter of course, unlike lcoal councillors. This article may be a stub, but that is no reason for deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2012 (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.