Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Paula O'Brien

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I believe this article should be deleted because the subject is non-notable according to WP:BIO. I found several news articles mentioning her, none of which establishes her notability. This article for example isn't actually about Ms. O'brien, but is mainly about one of her clients not receiving services. I also believe the previous article is actually blog posting on the Daily Record's website rather than a proper news article. Another one (not sure if this is a blog post or not) describes the author's experience with a psychic who happens to be Ms. O'Brien. She also was a contestant on The Chase and was mentioned in this article but lost. She was also mentioned in another blog post here by someone wanting to test her pregnancy prediction prowess. I believe that the types of coverage she was received is pretty insignificant. Most of what I find are random blogs (such as the one cited). The one news article I mentioned, dealt with her as a non-notable contestant on a game show that she lost. There were one or two other articles that mentioned in passing events that she was hosting at churches among a list of other activities occurring in a town. The remaining links dealt with group sessions that she was selling online at live events, something many psychic mediums do. I don't see any reason that she meets notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:545:4503:3BCB:2DD6:388:2EE0:6F9 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text was copied from article talk page.  I have not yet formed an opinion of my own at this time.  --Finngall talk  01:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk  01:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk  01:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk  01:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Blogs are inherently unreliable, as a source or for establishing notability. Passing mentions aren't enough either. Fails WP:SIGCOV, the Guardian article is an opinion piece clearly credited to a guest contributor (and it is only one piece, so it wouldn't be enough anyway). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delte fringe claims need good sourcing, which is totally lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2018 (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.