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. (non-admin closure)CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Christopher Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BASIC TheMagikCow (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the entries in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography (already cited), the Dictionary of National Biography [1], Rees' Notable Welshmen [2], and Allibone's Critical Dictionary of English Literature [3] should be enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, more than enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on basis of DWB. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Good references which meet WP:GNGPolitekid (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Politekid has been blocked as a sockpuppet.[reply]
• Keep, certainly. This is the sort of person who comes up in local history, is well documented, and encyclopedic. No reason for the article to be here. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I cannot verify "A Critical Dictionary of English Literature", but the biography reference is good, and it also references another article (though I cannot find it). Searching Google Scholar finds plenty of his writings, and references to it in books. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Anyone with a biography in the DNB clearly qualifies. This is a longstanding consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it would not be in our best interests to delete this article. Lepricavark (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as said above entry in the ODNB (accessible with British library card number) is clear evidence of notability. DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2017 (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.