Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy O'Brien (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Some comments on the debate. (1) Significant rewriting occured in the article, and after that point, more participants favored keeping. (2) The grounds for deletion were notability, but many users felt that the attention this person has received makes her notable enough. BLP was raised as a concern, but that was before the rewrite, and the current state seems neutral to me, and is thoroughly sourced. Mango juice talk 15:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cathy O'Brien

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject of this article is not particularly notable and the only sources are her own "testimony." SonOfGod 02:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep:
 * While she might not be notable in the same way that Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are notable, she is quite notable enough in her field to justify having a wikipedia article written about her.
 * If you can only find here self published material, you clearly aren't looking hard enough. Here are some good examples of third party sources (most from a NPOV/skeptical perspective), which mention her and give her notability outside of pure conspiracy circles.


 * Kenn (2000) "Cyberculture Counterconspiracy", Book Tree, ISBN 1585091251
 * Versluis, Arthur (2006) "The New Inquisitions: heretic-hunting and the intellectual origins of modern totalitarianism", Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195306376
 * De Young Mary (2004) "The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic", McFarland & Company, ISBN 0786418303
 * Toropov Brandon (2001) "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Urban Legends", Alpha Books, ISBN 0028640071
 * Barkun Michael (2003) "A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America", University of California Press, ISBN 0520238052

perfectblue 11:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete self-published conspiracy author. No sources convincing of WP:BIO. Arbustoo 02:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete self-publication doesnt cut it for an author's inclusion. the_undertow talk  03:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)]


 * KEEP: This article has already been nominated before and didn't get consensus. Subject is notable in their her field (conspiracy theory). Just because something is notable to you, "SonOfGod" doesn't mean it isn't notable to someone else. -Eep² 03:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I though a month ago, and i continue to think, that the references sufficiently demonstrate the notability of her "work," however absurd it all may be. A delusion at best, but a notable one.  It does not matter in the least whether the events described happened or not. WP is not the least unfriendly to fiction and imagination, regardless of the motive for its publication. Self published or not, the books are in many libraries.  DGG 04:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It looks like there are no secondary sources about this particular individual. I do not believe this particular person is notable per WP:BIO. The total lack of mainstream sources on this individual makes me think that this article does not belong at Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 04:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, thanks to the work of another editor, it now seems certain that this particular individual is notable enough a lunatic in the same sort of vein as Gene Ray. --ScienceApologist 15:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Google yields 14,400 hits (602 unique domains) with "'cathy o'brien' 'mark phillips'", Save the Males:  Illuminati Sex Slaves Paint Horrifying Picture by Henry Makow, The Konformist (exchange between Phillips, O'Brien's husband, and a skeptic of their book, Trance Formation of America), interview, another skeptic... -Eep² 05:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a good argument. Especially not when the names are so relatively common. The first few Google hits in fact confirm my comments that all we have to go on are primary sources. The amateur web interview and debunking that you linked to are not notable enough per WP:WEB to justify keeping an article on this subject. --ScienceApologist 12:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Self publishing accounts of one's utter insanity doesn't make you notable.  It's bizarre how any article, no matter how staid, on Wikipedia has a warning on its talk page about the importance of avoiding libel, and here in this article Wikipedia is happily repeating allegations that this woman was forced to make BDSM porn films for Gerald Ford, that George Bush Snr raped her 13 year old daughter, and that she was forced to have sex with Hilary Clinton.  This is the maddest thing I've ever read, which on Wikipedia is quite a feat.  Utter tosh not backed by independent, verifiable, non trivial sources. Nick mallory 05:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Um, Nick, I just gave 4 such links... Try reading them this time. -Eep² 05:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I point out that her claims are nuts and you roll your eyes at me? Do these sources you mention disparage her views or merely repeat them?  Either way I have a funny feeling they're not substantiating them.  Show me the proof that this woman was forced to make porn for Gerald Ford, had her daughter raped by George Bush senior or was forced to have lesbian sex with Hilary Clinton and then fine, it's a legitimate article.  Do you really believe her claims for a nano second?  If you do, where's the evidence?  If you don't, why do you think it's worthy of inclusion?  I know you must be terribly busy, what with all the eye rolling and everything, but I'd appreciate an answer or two here.  If project Monarch gets deleted, how can a woman who's only claim to notability is espousing it be notable? The sources you mention are simply links to her website, or extracts from her website or self published book on another conspiracy website.  That's hardly an independent, non trivial source is it?  When you google 'Cathy O'Brian' you get about six or seven references to her, all of which link to the wikipedia article or her own website, or extracts from her website, or pieces pushing her book.  There is no way this women is notable under Wikipedia guidelines.  Nick mallory 06:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added several sources in which her story is analyzed from a mainstream standpoint rather than repeated from the perspective of a believer. In one case it is analyzed as part of the wider "CIA brainwashing urban myth", in another it is analyzed as part of the "child abuse panic" (people seeing child abuse everywhere etc) and in a third it is discusses in itself. Is this sufficient? Yes, she's nuts, but she's notably nuts. - perfectblue 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: You're one to talk about invalid sources when you don't even bother reading them in the first place. The sources are only to validate that she said what she said; not that her claims are actually true. WP:BIO for more info... And your Google search talents are lacking. I GAVE the correct Google search link above; here's another--use it this time. Note: this is for "cathy o'brien" who is not unique, which is why I used the other quote with "mark phillips" in the first Google search link. Also, you have to go to the last Google search page, which may or may not yield more unique results (bug?) in order to see how many unique (per domain) hits there actually are--I get 744 with this search. -Eep² 07:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "The sources are only to validate that she said what she said; not that her claims are actually true." Nobody is actually claiming they are true, only that she is notable for having made said claims. - perfectblue 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The subject of the article is 'Cathy O'Brien' so that's what I googled. If you want to make the article about somebody else as well, then do so.  Or how about making it about Project Monarch?  Oh, right, you can't do that, because that article has already been deleted, so the only way to repeat the claims is to do it under the guise of this biography. Nick mallory 07:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Oh and take your own advice, hypocrite:
 * I have written several articles on first class cricketers on wikipedia and occasionally these have been nominated for deletion, often by people from countries which do not play the game. Every time that nomination has been overturned or withdrawn but it wastes time to fight the same battles over and over again. Someone not interested in cricket might think a player who played a few games in the 1920s isn't important, but that isn't the point. If wikipedia isn't comprehensive then what is it? Such articles, when linked to a couple of sources of reliable statistical data and put into the right category should be acceptable by definition. Is there a list of sports and competitions which editors can refer to before they nominate an article for deletion? If there was some way they could check that a first class cricketer was a notable person it would save some of the people on the wiki cricket project a lot of time. Nick mallory 12:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (source)
 * Just as obscure cricket players may not be notable to me, apparently, obscure conspiracy theorists aren't notable to you. Different strokes for different folks, eh? -Eep² 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Cricketers who've played first class cricket are deemed notable by Wikipedia policy and precedent because they've played at the highest level in their sport. This is accepted by everyone, except you it seems.  It's not a question of whether you think they're notable, it's a question of what the wikipedia policy is.  I'm not sure where I'm being a 'hypocrite' here.  If Cathy O'Brien ever bowled off spin for Worcestershire I'd be happy to support her inclusion.  Nice pun on the word 'strokes' by the way, I'm assuming it was an intentional play on words. Still not sure what calling me 'zippy' means on my talk page though, care to elaborate?  Nick mallory 07:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just a term of "endearment", Nicky. Anyway, you're missing the point about O'Brien's relevance to the topic of conspiracy theory. You obviously don't even research it so why are you even bothering trying to have this article removed? Perhaps you're part of the conspiracy too, eh? Why not just stay on your little cricket field like a good little lemming? -Eep² 07:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So I'm a 'fool' and a 'hypocrite' and a 'lemming' am I? I've seen cats, dogs, foxes and falcons on a cricket field but never a lemming, which is a pity, because they are cute.  Do you think that everyone who doesn't believe the world is run by shape changing lizards to be part of a conspiracy?  If so, there's quite a few of us. Nick mallory 07:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So you believe that a quote from someone's website is enough to make that person notable? By that logic everyone who had a blog or website would be notable.  There's nothing independent about her website is it?  Where's the story about her claims in the New York Times? If you're going to count the same self published information being mirrored and replicated as different google hits which can then somehow be equated to different, independent, non trivial sources then I think you're being quite 'bold' with your take on Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines.  Thanks for the note you just left on my talk page suggesting that I 'won't last long on Wikipedia' and that I should leave. I've considered the wisdom of your argument, and I'll stay, thanks.  Nick mallory 07:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Dude, are you seriously this dense? The links I provided ARE NOT WRITTEN BY HER OR PHILLIPS! Good god, man, get a freakin' clue and actually RESEARCH the provided links please, before you make yourself look like even more of a fool... -Eep² 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This extract is taken from one of the links you mentioned above as testimony that Cathy O'Brian was worthy of inclusion. I'll indent it, as per your request on my talk page Eep:


 * ''"The conspiracy, predictably, involves the CIA, Nazis, the Vatican, Satanists, HAARP, Walt Disney, assorted rock musicians, and Freemasonry. Naturally, childhood sexual abuse plays a key role. According to the escaped sex-slaves of Project Monarch, it all serves the world's (or, it seems, America's) power elite. And that elite, in some accounts, are the Lizard-People of the Illuminati.


 * ''Project Monarch seems to be largely the invention of Cathy O'Brien and her husband, Mark Phillips. O'Brien claims she was victimized by her father, who produced child pornography. Her uncle, privy to the top-secret Project, realized that the girl was perfect fodder for Monarch, which recruits multi-generational incest victims who suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder (Multiple Personality Disorder). O'Brien makes several unfounded claims about this condition; apparently, it gives one a a photographic memory, superhuman senses, and a high pain tolerance: all requirements for the CIA experiments. This, she explains, is the reality behind those Satanic Cults which suburban myth has performing Satanic Ritual Abuse in every other neighborhood; they're CIA fronts which produce the children Project Monarch requires. Disney films, Steven Spielberg's ET, L. Frank Baum's The Wizard of Oz, and even John Steinbeck novels all play a role in the programming. Of course, the CIA has an elaborate system of coded words, which permit operations to take place in public; bystanders will only hear the innocent words, and not the coded messages.


 * ''Their purpose? Well, because the agents have multiple personalities (not to mention their other nifty powers), they can be used as sex slaves, spies, or criminal operatives, without their primary personality ever knowing what they've been doing. This prevents future blackmail and other inconveniences. Professional comedians, O'Brien assures us, often handle the Monarch slaves.


 * ''O'Brien, it turns out, was a "Presidential Model" slave. Her customers included George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton. "Hillary knew I was a mind-controlled slave," she reports, commenting on their first meeting, "and, like Bill Clinton, just took it in stride as a 'normal' part of life in politics." And she recalls with horror the memorable day when she saw Bush reveal his true form: a humanoid lizard.


 * For the sex slaves do not exist only to provide pleasure to their masters. The Illuminati Reptiloids require human DNA, obtained through acts of sex and vampirism, to retain their human disguises."


 * And some more from the same source;


 * ''"O'Brien's husband, Mark Phillips, has told varying accounts of how he learned about Project Monarch, whence he rescued his future wife. He claims he had a sensitive position with NASA in the 1960s when it seems he could have been, at most, in his early twenties. He also claims to have stumbled onto sensitive information while working for California-based Woodland Hills Research and Development-- a corporation which doesn't seem to exist. According to reporter/conspiracy theorist Martin Cannon, Phillips' most impressive job for which any record can be found involved the sale of recreational vehicles.


 * ''Another woman, Brice Tayler, tells tales similar to O'Brien's. As a bonus, she implicates the late Bob Hope in the conspiracy. It must be noted, however, that her stories appeared after Cathy O'Brien's were available for inspiration."


 * The piece, predictably, concludes that Cathy O'Brian, if sincere, is suffering from a delusion or mental illness. If this is the type of source not written by the lady in question then I don't think you're doing your case much good. Nick mallory 07:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Again, the source is there just to state that she said what she said--not that what she said is actually true, Nick. Regardless, her notability within conspiracy theory is there; her many radio interviews, convention/forum appearances, etc attest this point alone. -Eep² 07:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, it's not a question of her notability in the world of 'conspiracy theory', it's a question of her notability in the world of Wikipedia. The fact that she's appeared at a forum doesn't make her notable.  Nick mallory 08:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Again, you just aren't researching the issue enough to be qualified to comment about it. -Eep² 12:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I'm entitled to my opinion Eep, as you are to yours. Others will judge as to whose arguments are the more convincing.  You still seem singularly unable to produce credible sources for this article and no amount of impugning my intelligence, motives or knowledge will change that.  Nick mallory 12:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If there was still a Project Monarch article I'd recommend that it be merged there, since Cathy O'Brien has absolutely no notability that doesn't derive from her alleged participation in Project Monarch. However, since Project Monarch was deleted in an AfD that decided it was non-notable I don't see how there's any logic to keeping a Cathy O'Brien article.  Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Antaeus, you argue in favor ("Keep, cleanup, and watch") of keeping the Project Monarch article... The problem with deleted articles is that they are basically black-holed and can't ever be expanded upon in the future (unless one can manage to track down who deleted the article and request it be restored). This is lame. All deleted articles should be publically accessible and restorable by anyone temporarily with the intention that they will be sourced, etc. "Consensus" is relative--and it bugs me when articles are mindlessly deleted. There are a LOT of articles on Wikipedia that aren't properly sourced--yes, of living people biographies, too. Why is it the conspiracy theorists seem to be targeted for deletion? That's another conspiracy in itself, perhaps... -Eep² 07:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete self-published; an ad. Jmlk17 07:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: now sourced to third parties - perfectblue 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is not an ad; and she is referenced by others, most notably David Icke. -Eep² 07:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * David Icke?!?!?! That would be the David Icke who believes Queen Elizabeth II, the Duke of Edinburgh and Bill Clinton are shape changing alien lizards, right? And that Ted Heath, former British Prime Minister, used to sacrifice children as well as sail yachts and play the piano?  Nick mallory 07:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yep; that's the one. "Do your homework", as Jordan Maxwell likes to say... -Eep² 12:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm entirely familiar with Mr Icke's beliefs, which is why I'm incredulous that you'd cite him as a serious, respected source for anything. Nick mallory 12:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A person can be considered notable if other notable people consider them to be notable enough to discuss in their work. Icke might be made as a loon, but he's sure is famous in conspiracy circles. Here, notability and notoriety are interchangeable. - perfectblue 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing Mr Icke's position on Wikipedia. He's what Woody Allen would have called a 'major loon'.  I am questioning his use as a source for Cathy O'Brien's notability.   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick mallory (talk • contribs) 14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
 * When a notable individual takes up somebody's case or cites them said individual gains bonus points themselves. If a famous physicist writes a piece about the work of a not so famous physicist that says that it's good, then that piece can be used as evidence that the second physicist's work is notable. - perfectblue 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless I'm missing something here. Noone reliable seems to care about her. I can find no news articles and most of the google hits seem to be self-published sites rather than peer reviewed or at least news/government sites. Can one of the keep voters give a couple of news articles about her ? Personally I love articles on people like her...makes a good read... but without sources the article is unsupportable - Peripitus (Talk) 09:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. Whether she is completely nuts or self-serving (she clearly is one of the two) is beside the point. The article is in no way an endorsement of her claims, but a report of them. The only question is whether she has attained notability, which it seems she has. Johnbod 10:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that Eep and I have argued about her notability doesn't mean she's notable. As Peripitus points out, there are no news articles or non self published sources beyond a few conspiracy websites and the like.  There's no serious coverage of her claims.  How does it 'seem' that she's attained notability?  Nick mallory 10:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've listed several above. - perfectblue 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Learning to think relatively can help you understand how O'Brien is notable, Nick. I tire of trying to you how to think relatively so this will be my final communication with you. Again, what YOU find notable others may not. I don't particularly find cricket notable but you obviously do. Do you see me marking your numerous cricket pages for deletion? No, you don't. Why? Because I see notability as relative and see how cricket is relatively notable--just as conspiracy theory (and O'Brien's claims) are relatively notable. It's not that hard a concept to grasp... -Eep² 12:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's Wikipedia policy which says first class cricketers are notable Eep. I don't decide, you don't decide, the community decides.  It's a peer generated commons.  If you don't understand that, you fail to grasp the whole nature of Wikipedia.  As for thinking 'relatively', well, you're entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts.  This article will stand or fall by what everyone thinks, not just you and me. You know, just like all those articles you wrote on the subject of 'Eep' which kept getting deleted by everyone else. Nick mallory 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable and a clear violation of WP:BLP. By the way, calling someone "Zippy" may very well be a contravention (and not a very witty one) of WP:NPR, since the only notable Zippy I can find is Zippy the Pinhead. -- Charlene 11:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Zippy was also a character on the ITV kids show 'Rainbow' in Britain. I have no problems personally with Eep's language when he's talking to me, I'm all for a vigorous, if occasionally bizarre, debate. Nick mallory 12:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of reliable, third-party, sources. --Pjacobi 12:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I cannot say I find her claims credible but she is right up there with Candy Jones as a notable (or notorious) alleged victim of MKULTRA.  In addition, her claims form a bridge to other wildly popular conspiracy theories such as those of David Icke about Reptilian humanoids.  It may be bizarre and it may be laughable to some, but her story is widely known and discussed.  If we can get the article up to standards, keep a check on the article's content and keep it encyclopedic, it would be good to have the article since Wikipedia is a more NPOV place for people to get their first info on such subjects.  If we delete it, all Googlers will come up with are conspiracy forums and Cathy O'Brien's book.  Deleting an article because it needs work is overkill. I would also like to remind other editors to quit the name-calling and to be civil to eachother.  This talk page is not a place for personal attacks or a place to debate MKULTRA or Project Monarch.  it is set aside to discuss whether to keep or delete this article.  ThanksLiPollis 13:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yea, well, you know what ticks me off, Lisa? When someone mindlessly nominates an article for deletion without even first bringing up his/her concerns on the talk page to give people a CHANCE to improve the article. Instead, it's a mob mentality of "delete" vs. "keep"--frickin' ridiculous. It's as if the article is charged with a crime and it is taken to trial for sentencing. Ludicrous. Citation request template notices should be used first and, if still not satisfied after, say, a week, THEN an article should be nominatable for deletion. I don't think it's very civil to have an article mindlessly nominated for deletion--especially when it was already nominated so soon before. -Eep² 13:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Another comment: Keepers, are you the fifth column of Citizendum? On a mission to make Wikipedia a crackpot's nest? O'Brien's not only ridiculous, but more importantly non-notable claims, already made it to Still more Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, WTF have they been re-inserted at Reptilian humanoid:
 * O'Brien says in her book "The Trance-formation of America" (with Mark Phillips) that she witnessed George Bush Sr. physically shapeshift into a reptilian alien being. She rationalized this as potentially being a holographic illusion as part of her mind control programming.
 * Pjacobi 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Pjacobi, As much as I agree that her claims are basically baying at the moon, she is a very visible manifestation of an evolving paranoid subculture. Belief in reptillian humanoids and mind control is today where belief in UFOs and Alien Abduction were 20 to 30 years ago. It's really not a matter of proof for these folks any more than apparations of the virgin mary are for pilgrims to Lourdes. (Meaning, the pilgrims are taking a dead girl's statement that she saw the Virgin as fact despite not seeing her themselves) It is a mistake to view Ufology and conspiricism as beliefs that can be eliminated if all the articles about them are deleted or if those that remain can be loaded with logical evidence of their falsehood or skeptical viewpoints.  These subjects occupy the same place as religious belief or faith for their "True Believers."  I feel the proper approach is to document them accurately, state what they believe dispassionately, add in enough coverage of their controversial nature as is reasonable and then let the readers see for themselves the nature of the subject.  In the case of Cathy O'Brien, deleting the article will not have the effect dimishing people's belief in such things and keeping it will not likely promote belief in her claims.  It is the latter that many editors seem to fear.  I say trust the editors to create a balanced article and trust the readers to see her claims for what they are.  My view of wikipedian readers is that they do not need to be protected from fringe beliefs.  However bizarre O'brien's claims, she is representative of an entire subset of the conspiracy movement. Better to have a balanced article here for readers to turn to than the only mentions of her on the net be without references and critical views.  isn't it our job to document such things and provide context for the reader with links to other wikipedia articles on the subect?LiPollis 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree, Lisa. But then the whiners will complain it's "original research" in compiling a balanced article.  WhatEVER! As I've said before, all wikipedians are original researchers with every article they create. But, of course, "originality" is relative because who truly has an original idea--ever? "It's all been done before"--rehashed, regurgitated, compiled information soup. Mmm, soup...welcome to the wikimeltingpotedia. -Eep² 15:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: This subject may not be that politically notable, like in the way of FDR or JFK, but the article is well referenced with many non-trivial works, and thus I will have to vote to Keep the article. ~ Magnus animum  ∵ ∫ φ γ 20:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Some of the above deletes are based on the idea that if her account is false, then it is not notable. She's notable because of her published account and the notice it has received, bot because of the actual events if any. inventors  of all sorts of notable hoaxes are notable, as are the self-deluded. it depends on public notice. DGG 22:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable nonsense. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO as non-notable. While there are a couple mentions in books, coverage is incedental and trivial.  --Minderbinder 16:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. O'Brien's story is somewhat unusual and the references show that she has gained some notoriety. --JJay 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep ... notable and unusual ... J. D. Redding 00:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - taken into account its subject, and given the current state, it seems pretty well referenced for an article eventhough I would think there could be many more different references to use for this article ... also given wikipedias goal of allowing growth and creation of articles this article should be given a chance to clean itself up if there are any problems with it (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 16:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notable enough, well-referenced. WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:24, 6 May 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.