Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian 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. --Coredesat 07:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Davies

Ian Davies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Procedural nomination. An editor who claims to be Ian Davies requests that the page be deleted (see Talk:Ian Davies) and in any case, it's not clear that there exists sufficient reliable third-party coverage to build an article properly. Pascal.Tesson 18:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not a particulary well known betting site. Nice rags to riches story, but not notable enough to warrant inclusion. Mike33 - t@lk 19:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. This page was created a few years ago by my business partner, who believed it satisfied the minimum criteria for inclusion here. Since then, I have periodically kept it up to date and endeavoured to comply with all requests for citations and expansion etc from Wikipedia editors. However, the page's very existence seems a source of irritation to some, and it has often been vandalised. I certainly have no personal objection to its deletion - I am not a self publicist - not that my personal view is relevant to your final decision anyway. Wikipedia's editors will of course do as they see fit, and, fwiw, my objective personal view is that the page should be deleted. By the way, it's NOT a rags to riches story - it's merely a brief account of a moderately well off bloke (me) who launched an unfunded internet start up, which has 2,000 members but, due to the low-margin nature of the business, has not even reached profitability, hence he (me) remains moderately well off! A non story, in other words. - Ian Davies

• Delete. Arguably there is sufficient notability for BackAndLay (.com), to which information could be merged, but individual is close but short of WP:BIO, so there is no reason not to honor this request. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete This is truly borderline notable only, and I see no reason for not following the advice of the subject.DGG (talk) 18:54, 30 July 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.