Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim O'Hare


 * 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. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim O'Hare

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

This was originally prodded, and I endorsed it, however the creator then removed the prod template, so per PROD I've listed it here, the concern is that due to a lack of sources the subject fails our notability guidelines SpitfireTally-ho! 11:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion, but the article seems to be a resume with no actual claim of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I thought stand-alone articles that fail WP:GNG are eligible for deletion? I'm not tryings to be defensive or pompous by asking this, I really am interested, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 15:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Failing WP:N is indeed grounds for deletion, but lack of sources simpliciter doesn't constitute a failure of WP:N. Articles need to be sourced (per WP:V), true, but the solution for unsourced articles is to find sources, not to delete the articles.  Of course, if the sources can't be found, that may be grounds for deducing that the subject isn't notable - but that's a separate issue. Tevildo (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO; his IMDb entry  contains no further evidence of notability. Tevildo (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 16:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Pburka (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Not notable, no coverage in 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A7 tag added. Tevildo (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to clarify, Tevildo, you do know that an editor doesn't need authorization to remove a speedy tag? Your edit summary seems to imply that you do need authorization. Zipcode456 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies - I was under the impression that the correct response to a CSD tag was to add a tag and wait for admin adjudication, but apparently this only applies to the article creator; a potential anomaly/loophole in the rules?  In any case, _this_ article should (IMO) be A7'd, tagging notwithstanding. Tevildo (talk) 14:36, 13 April 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.