Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Dunn


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 15:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Simon Dunn

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

Insufficient reliable sources from which to write a biography. All the article sources are self-written web entries or press releases. Kevin (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Falcon8765 (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. If the claims made in the article can be sourced, the subject can be considered (albeit marginally) relevant. McMarcoP (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But the claims in the article can't be sourced. There appears only to be self-published source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete We can't write articles for every Tom, Dick, and Harry "millionaire" in the world. Notability is close to zero and the refs are not up to scratch. Google search brings up the chocolatier instead and nothing on this guy. Rafablu88  13:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Being a millionare doesn't mean automatic notability. Joe Chill (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. My view is that this is not a "tom dick or harry" millionaire but a young man who appears to have beat the odds, and that is worthy of relevance in wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.237.130 (talk • contribs) — 92.41.237.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: That doesn't make him notable. -Falcon8765 (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC):Comment: Your correct however it would make him biographical.


 * Weak Keep. Article's appear to be sourced, the subject can be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.205.113.45 (talk)
 * Strong keepthis guy is clearly known as Simon Francis Dunn under search results from google. This is why the article must be kept and simply moved under Simon Francis Dunn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.20.131 (talk)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh  16:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - no reliable sources writing about this individual. All references provided in the article are self-published and my own searches found only more self-published sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 24 August 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.