Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan O’Sullivan


 * 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 00:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Brendan O’Sullivan

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

Non-notable individual, no reliable secondary sources about the individual, does not meet WP:ATHLETE exception to WP:N. 2008 Olym pian chit chat 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Definately meets WP:ATHLETE, no sources is not a valid reason to delete an article, should be tagged as unreferenced. It appears the nominator has nominated a collection of Irish related articles with little knowledge of the sports in general. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I ask that this nom be withdrawn and the article be tagged with or  as appropriate instead. I can find no reason in WP:DEL for this page to be nominated.  Jenuk1985  |  Talk  20:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jenuk, but because of BLP requirements, it needs to be rewritten with some sources very soon. And could all these hurling AfDs not have been grouped?! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 20:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article definitely needs some references, but independent of this the subject does meet WP:N.  Flying  Toaster  20:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As per WP:GAA guidelines ,WP:ATH and the above Gnevin (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable under WP:ATH. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is wholly unreferenced, so its claims to notability is not supported by any reference, and wikipedia has no business publishing wholly unreferenced biographies of living people (see WP:BLP). No prejudice to recreating this articles at a future date if they are referenced to establish notability and to demonstrate that the person concerned actually exists. As Jimmy Wales wrote, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."" It's time to stop pussyfooting around this one and simply delete BLP articles which mock wikipedia's core policies by failing to even provide a reference for the subject's existence, let alone evidence to support the assertion of notability. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can find nothing in WP:BLP to back up your delete argument other than deletion should be used as a last resort. It certainly hasn't got to last resort stage yet. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  14:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. WP:BLP says "Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed." We are now having that discussion, and the AFD is open for at least another 6 days, which is plenty of time for a reference (if it exists) to be added which demonstrates that O'Sullivan exists and that he meets the notability test in WP:ATHLETE.  If that ref is added by the time the AFD is closed, then the closing admin should disregard my !vote, and if I spot the ref before then I will be delighted to strike out my !vote to delete.  But, if after 7 days under the spotlight there isn't that one reference, then we are at the last resort situation. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Refs foundGnevin (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changing my !vote now that refs have been added. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a notable athlete who has played at the highest level of his sport. He is most certainly notable at a national level. Derry Boi (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 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.