Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter O. Halloran


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Peter O. Halloran

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

So far, nothing to add on this Blatant misuse of Wikipedia. Only interest is to build an online reputation and Luring customers in the name of Wikipedia. Prodded by User:Mabuska, removed by the creator. A possible sock farm. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: The references in this article take it close to Hoax territory: shovelling in anybody named Peter O Halloran, including a farming tax expert in KwaZulu-Natal, a lecturer in Belfast and even a general who joined the army 7 years before the subject was born. We are left with little more than a smattering of weight loss promo postings. No evidence of WP:ANYBIO notability.AllyD (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and WP:ANYBIO. As per 's note above, after a quick glance at the references one might think that WP:GNG is met. However, as soon as you scratch the surface it is clear that all those "reference" links relate to at least three different men. There may be an innocent explanation for that (newbie exuberance or good faith mistake), but it does lend to hoax-ish overtones (or possible paid-editing/COI attempts to feign GNG). Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. What made me tag the article in the first place is that the article seems to be an attempt at self-advertisement by a non-notable person, two things I still believe. Mabuska (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * delete obviously created for promotional purposes. There is nothing anybody can learn from this, and WP is not a directory. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2017 (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.