Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin O'Sullivan


 * 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. Walton Assistance! 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Kevin O'Sullivan

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete- No reliable refs, sources; neither parent credited surnamed O'Sullivan; massive vandalism; impossible to ensure integrity of page - to know what's true or not IPhoebusApollo 19:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like he does exist--see his blog.Blueboy96 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't deny he may exist, although a blog is hardly suitable proof for an encyclopaedia. I am referring to the state of the page, the lies, vandalism, nonsense and chaos therein. IPhoebusApollo 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, mass vandalism has never been a criterion for deletion. If it were, we would have no article on George W. Bush, for example. A protection request would probably be more appropriate here than a nomination for deletion. Grutness...wha?  06:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me rephrase -- I was wrong. The page was not vandalized. Rather, the entire page, every single line from beginning to end is a hoax, a gag - someone (User:89.243.198.48) has been laughing that it was not uncovered since April 12th. The ridiculous length of the text is but one giveaway, as are the lack of valid sources. Everything from his birth to his parents to his "National Service" to his "marriages" to the purported incident involving Laurence Olivier to his film career to "Sir Clint Eastwood" is garbage!!

I mean, come on people: ''In March 2007 a controversial statue of O'Sullivan and his beloved poodle, Toto, erected on Hampstead Heath, was crudely vandalised. Although the perpetrators have yet to be caught, a British newspaper, The Sunday People, received an email claiming responsibility from a group calling themselves "The Hairs [sic] of Jonathan King". The group has also claimed to have been behind damage caused to a number of London statues, including that of Sir Peter Pears and of Lord Baden-Powell in Queensgate. Coincidentally, O'Sullivan himself was a Scout for three decades, though he developed a deep phobia about woggles in his sixties after an unfortunate incident in a damp tent which left him unable to DYB DYB DYB with conviction (which was later quashed). P'Sullivan's marriage to Hortense Grimaldi in 1972 made him distantly related to Rainier III, Prince of Monaco (born Rainier Louis Henri Maxence Bertrand Grimaldi). Technically - albeit by marriage - O'Sullivan was 147th in line to the throne of the principality and would have become, in the highly unlikely event of his succession, His Serene Highness The Sovereign Prince of Monaco, Prince Kevin I. Indeed, as the marriage to Hortense was never fully annulled, O'Sullivan often insisted on being referred to as His Serene Highness in bylines.''

Of course you have to read the page to realize this and those who haven't read the page should not be voting on it. This thing needs to be nuked ASAPIPhoebusApollo 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great God in a bottle. Delete this utter heap of foolishness, or at the very least stubify it to what's verifiable - that he's a newspaper columnist.I don't think it'd even be close to repairable in its current state. If the subject's notable enough, then someone may recreate it in a way that it's not a complete joke. Sad, sad, sad that it's been up in this state for so long. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain for now – i'm gonna have a go at stripping down all the bollocks to only what's verifiable, then see if it's worth having or not.  tomasz.  10:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well that was easier than i thought. Now it's essentially a question of notability, i think.  tomasz.  11:30, 31 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.