Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy O'Brien


 * 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 no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  20:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cathy O'Brien

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am also nominating the following related pages because his only claim to notability is also Project Monarch:

I personally thought that Project Monarch was notable enough as a crackpot conspiracy theory to merit inclusion, but others felt differently. If the conspiracy theory is non-notable, however, I can't picture how individuals whose only claim to notability is their alleged involvement in the conspiracy and its exposure could be notable. Antaeus Feldspar 15:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as an author and fairly well-known dissident campaigner, she is notable. Your (or my) opinion of her cause shouldn't be relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.225.131.144 (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I believe you're missing the point. "Her cause" is Project Monarch.  If anyone had been able to provide evidence for the claim that the theories about Project Monarch were notable, the proposal to delete that article would not have passed.  If we can't show notability for Project Monarch then I doubt we can show it for Cathy O'Brien, for obvious reasons. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Cathy O'Brien is a deluded nutbag with obviously ridiculous claims. However, that does not disqualify her from having an encyclopedia entry about her, especially since other nutbags (most notably David Icke) have reference her work enough to give her a certain level of noteriety. As long as all her claims are noted as "alleged," I have no problem voting Keep.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,


 * Keep per above. Her level of nutbaggery (and being the subject of multiple publications) is sufficiently high that she meets WP:Notability, irrespective of the fate of the Project Monarch article.  She must be quite the crafty nut to have remained alive (in hiding, I assume) long enough to write/publish a book even though she was undoubtedly being pursued by the CIA.  -- Black Falcon 06:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If Project MONARCH is not notable, how can views on Project MONARCH be notable? Cart before the horse scenario. D Mac Con Uladh 17:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep For something like this conspiracy, one article but not two is undoubtedly enough, but whichever one was chose it could be argued that the other should be listed instead. The person in this case is likely to b ethe better known, so this article is the right one to keep. But for the co-author, its another matter, as he merely coauthored the book, and does not claim to have had the experiences--delete for him, or list separately. DGG 06:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I cannot find evidence of independent coverage by reliable sources, and none is cited in the article.  Thus, article appears to fail WP:BIO.-- Kubigula (talk) 20:45, 20 February 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.