Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Patrick 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   delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Patrick O&

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a businessperson, relying almost entirely on primary sources and straddling the line between encyclopedia article and outright advertising (note, frex, the sheer number of times the ® symbol shows up in the "career" section.) I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing and tone can be significantly revised, but nothing here makes him so inherently notable that he'd be allowed to keep this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  01:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage required for WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of RS. However, you're supposed to check whether adequate sources are available before you nominate an article, not nominate on the basis that, "I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing and tone can be significantly revised."  You're an admin; you're supposed to know this.  GoldenRing (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes sources can be provided which are outside the range of what can actually be Googled (e.g. newspaper or specialist media databases that I don't have access to), so don't assume or allege that I somehow failed to do sufficient WP:BEFORE of my own just because I left the possibility open that some acceptable sources might still exist despite my own lack of success at turning anything up with the resources I have available to me. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; my apologies. GoldenRing (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - really very marginal in sourcing and notability. I removed some trivial personal information per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2014 (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.