Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Vestey

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 of the debate was speedy keep. Mackensen (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Vestey[edit]

Non-notable and unencyclopedic, especially as it is utterly unclear who he's supposed to be. Google turns up 96 distinct hits for "Sir Derek Vestey", most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. This article has been here two years without improving from its origins as an unwikified and confused text dump. Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, withdraw. He exists after all. Thanks for the rewrite. Mackensen (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person. Is there no information available to describe his notability in any field of human endeavour? There's a lot of space on the page waiting to be filled with these facts, if they exist. -- (aeropagitica) 23:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Snakes 23:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantive improvement in old sub-stub during Afd Keep the rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 23:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've updated the article. There are plenty of references in Newsbank, though none give a birth (and presumably) death date. The nephew of someone born in 1859 isn't too likely to be alive in 2006. Tearlach 02:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete. Obviously it isn't vanity, since this person must be dead by now. JoaoRicardo^talk 16:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.