Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paddy Cunningham


 * 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. —Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 04:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Paddy Cunningham

 * — (View AfD)

I can see no clear indication of notability in this article. Fails WP:Notability-- Vintagekits 13:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Article needs work but I can see why he would be notable--Edchilvers 13:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Its a vanity page, the guy is a TV researcher and has added nothing to anything imo, also no hits for him on google (except for his own vanity webpage) Vintagekits 13:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Possibly notable but requires a cleanup and references. I've added that to the page. Akihabara 14:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment He is listed as a radio presenter on the MediaUK website and the radio station for which he works is played at commercial outlets across Ireland. I'd say he just about qualifies--Edchilvers 14:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If that qualifies as notability then pretty much everyone in the world could have a wiki page, he is listed as having a job, so what its not notable. There are no hits for him on the net apart from what he has created himself. Vintagekits 14:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that the article was written by a certain User:Padmund who seems to have made no contributions to Wikipedia other than this one. I suspect that this may be an autobiography but this does not mean to say that he is non-notable.--Edchilvers 14:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment from my view it is a autobig, he even lists being an extra in an Irish Soap as one of the things that he has done! say no more Vintagekits 14:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep So what does it take to qualify as notable for some people. Hits on google are apparently the be all end all notability solution. They guy works on a large radio show, on TV. Thousands know who he is. Wiki's not paper. Every tom dick and harry who has been on TV has a page. As they should. Well he's one.--Xiahou 00:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you for really? he works on a "show" that is piped out of 200 Spar shops in Ireland - no one knows who he is, its a totally unreferenced autobiog. Vintagekits 00:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * so whats the magic number qualifier to achieve this status of "notability" then? --Xiahou 03:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no number - they guy is just not notable. Google is just a good start to see if there is any notability. When you say he has been on TV - he hasn't - its an autobiography - Please note the language he uses - he states he has "contributed to many shows" - what does that mean, he could have just made tea, photocopied, what? "contributed to a number of well known newspaper publications" - no reference to any of these again and I could find anything on the net either. "working for the famous Radio and TV personality Bruno Brookes" - again doing what, cutting his lawn? again no reference to anything like this on the net! "Stations previously worked on include" again didn't state what he did there, I have spoken to people at two of the stations that he listed and they state he was never a presenter there, so what was he doing, photcopying again, fixing the mcis?! "Also appeared on the Irish Current Affairs Show Prime Time" - please not the word "appeared" - this is Irelands version of Question Time on BBC1 - he never appeared on the panel, so either he is lying or sat in the audience (which is not a notable) and then he states he was an extra on a soap opera - thats almost laughable. Its an autobiography and a vanity page in my opinion. Also noting that is stated can be verified! Vintagekits 13:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "So what does it take to qualify as notable for some people" - no need to ask here, read WP:BIO.  Dei zio  talk 16:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Not even one of the notability assertions have been substantiated with a citation of any kind. At this time there is no verifiable information to show this should be kept. In fact it should have been speedy by someone on PC Patrol. It also looks like the initial editor is the subject of the article, so qualifies a vanity page that might be allowed on the user page. ww2censor 13:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable vanity page. Bastun 13:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn, vanity. Keep rationales above display lack of knowledge about WP practice and no assertion of notability.  Dei zio  talk 14:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity page Subwayguy 06:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. NN Vanity. Guliolopez 11:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, and per WP:RS. Ohconfucius 08:26, 13 December 2006 (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.