Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terri 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Terri O'Sullivan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. See also Articles for deletion/Ste Richardsson. Pontificalibus 10:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This article was created to advertise its subject. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 11:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect Agreed as article stood at time of nom, but there are sources, including the two BBC interviews used here and other pieces from In Mind, La Republica, BBC World and a couple of other international sources. Subject meets minimum notability criteria and assuming WP:GOODFAITH of the original editor I can offer to reduce the puffery/advertising to a stub to work on, if other editors are in agreement. EDIT comment: actually there wasn't much ad to remove. Cropped image and edited text, removed extraneous refs. Mramoeba (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see there are some sources that mention her in the context of her work with XJW Friends, so I would support a redirect to there. However I'm not seeing the sufficient in-depth coverage about her in reliable sources needed to support a seperate article. I'm not sure the "in-mind" source can be used to establish notability either, it being a profile of one of their authors and so not being independent for that purpose. --Pontificalibus 08:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That would make sense, with a view to recreating if further sources become available. I think the BBC sources are used there, although the refs are formatted in a way which means you can't tell at first glance. Mramoeba (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Interviews do not add to notability. This article is too heavily sourced to primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~   {talk}  10:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Mramoeba (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon. r   Do you have any questions?  15:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete All of the very limited coverage (BBC, La Republica etc) occurred around the end of July 2017. It's essentially the same story played out over a week or two, and based on the BBC coverage. There is no breadth of coverage over time, even in relation to the very limited number of sources. Fails GNG, but may meet WP:PSEUDO.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2019 (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.