Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malissa A. O'Dubhtaigh

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. Sandstein 10:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malissa A. O'Dubhtaigh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't believe this person is notable. Doesn't meet GNG IMO. Her suing the VA is a case of BLP1E Gbawden (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination, lacks significant coverage per WP:GNG (unless there is coverage under previous name that I'm not aware of). Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, per GNG. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination not sufficient coverage to meet GNG. EricSerge (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Put into Draft The article was just created. The AfD nominator barely gave the new editor a chance to develop the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quick actions to AfD sensitive topics (like intersex) are hurting Wikipedia, IMO. We are losing diverse editors because they feel bullied. Note: I am NOT saying they are being bullied, but a deft touch with a newbie isn't a bad thing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't consider myself a deletionist, I fail to see the notability of this individual. She is supposedly a military veteran, but the article does not include military service information. Her surgery occurred in 1998, so I doubt this was a medical breakthrough. Her legal case does not appear to have been a cause célèbre. Her career as a professional martial artist might be notable, at least if someone can find professional information. At this moment the article provides no sources. A google search for the name mostly results in Wikipedia pages about the deletion process. This hardly seems promising. Dimadick (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just aren't sources to attest notability. Do not userfy or draft; this concerns a living person about whom evidently only primary sources exist, so there are BLP problems. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Roscelese. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I came by after seeing this referenced over at Policy-AfD Culture. I don't wish to vote, but I suspect the strict WP:BIO guidelines exclude this person. That said, I will point at WP:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions. This discussion hits a good amount of those, sadly. Furthermore, the talk pages of the article and its creator have nothing to say about this, suggesting that no attempts at engagement were made, that WP:BEFORE was not followed, and that we just lost another editor. I'm sure "BLP1E" and the rest of the acronyms will really roll off the tongue of the page creator as they explain the arbitrary and capricious ways of Wikipedia editors.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Userfy: This clearly is a unique individual who did something new (to the best of my knowledge). Seems to me to be a lot more than a BIO1E situation and I favor giving this editor (or others) time to get it cleaned up and expanded. But, per this discussion, they may not be able to find more sources (I could not). Montanabw ^(talk) 04:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.