Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William p. o'neill


 * 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, per. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

William p. o'neill
318 google hits (for "William P. O'Neill" -- William O'Neill brings up other unrelated people), non-notable head of a minor organization plugging quack cancer cures. The article was created by someone using the username User:Woneill. Catamorphism 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral-An article on the organization might be better or at least more notable. The current article has a POV slant that would need to be corrected. 205.157.110.11 15:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I originally placed a prod notice on the page, as the article is about a nn. individual. --Wisd e n17 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, NN. Nuttah68 20:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note Author User:Woneill blanked page . Blanking was reverted by a bot, and all other edits have been related to deletion processes, except for the edit by User:Pbowditch which was Pbowditch's first and only edit, and arguably vandalism. Nom for WP:CSD G7. -- Wine Guy  Talk  05:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Another Note User:Pbowditch has never needed to edit anything before, so there has to be a first time. Providing additional information about Mr O'Neill is only vandalism in the mind of someone who doesn't understand the word. I don't want to see Mr O'Neill's entry deleted - I want it to provide information about Mr O'Neill which might be of use to someone wanting to find out about him. He is a significant medical quack, and warning people about him (by using his very own words) provides a useful service. - Pbowditch 12:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep He is a notable enough quack to have been mentioned by James Randi: . JoshuaZ 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete He shouldn't be allowed to start and edit his own page. He is attempting to use it as self-glorifying advertising. -- Fyslee 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete vanity, verifiability, poor spelling, et cetera. Article can be restarted by a neutral Wikipedian sometime if appropriate (i.e. if some more solid info from the TV report makes it online or into print).  The Randi mention is a red flag but I think is not solid enough to cite for negative info per WP:BLP, and we certainly shouldn't retain a one-sided positive article for someone like this.  Phr (talk) 11:40, 20 July 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.