Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John O'Connor aka. 'Pal'


 * 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. No arguments to keep. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 13:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

John O&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy delete: per WP:CRUFT, WP:NOTABLE. Hard to believe the page has been around this long without challenge. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * would you mind explaining how 'cruft' and 'notable' apply? I'm not sure if you're asserting the article writer (me!) is a big fan of O'Connor, or if the sourcing isn't reliable? Privatemusings (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BIO1E. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * out of interest, what's the 1E - presumably dying? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Privatemusings: Sorry if my language was too harsh. I probably should have just stuck with lack of notability. The guy was not notable. Your sourcing is not the question but yeah the page does read kind of like a misguided tribute, which would be OK in some other venue. Maybe I am just the only one who bothered to mention it. I have no ill will towards the late Mr O'Connor, or "Pal", but the page doesn't belong on Wikipedia, which is why I created this AFD, which you haven't actually contested. (I don't know what 1E is either.) Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Delete - Passes part of WP:BIO in that he has been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" which it has, but the article could also be interpreted as failing WP:BIO1E. 1E deals with separate articles on events and people associated with them, but the refs in this case are mostly about the event of his death and the effects it had, which was really his main source of notability. I think it's pretty borederline when it comes to the 1E (which means "one event", by the way), but I'm going to have to say delete. Sorry. Quite an interesting article, tho, if it makes you feel any better, Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  21:18, 28 November 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.