Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver O'Dea (2nd nomination)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver O'Dea[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is an odd one. For starters, he doesn't look notable. Two, he seems to have died recently, although I could find no obituary beyond a death notice. But weirder: a relative of his has requested his article be deleted, and claims that the article is in part a hoax Ticket:2020111110002678. It doesn't quite meet the letter of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE however, as the subject isn't living, but it certainly seemed enough to open an AfD over. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek <sthin up>Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are a handful of sources which seem to support some of the content. And at least a partial claim to some notability. Including this and this. However, it has to be noted that these are not especially reliable sources (an otherwise ROTM website and a reprinted UK tabloid news article). The sources in the article are also somewhat light (an archived webpage and IMDB entry which may or may not relate to the subject). Personally I'm not sure that SIGCOV is met (given that sources are thin on the ground, and those that can be found are somewhat thin in content). Absent something more substantive, I'd err towards deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clearly a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that the subject does not seem to meet NBOX and having seen the OTRS ticket, I see no reason not to honour what seems to be a reasonable request for deletion by the subject's relative. Best, Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:34, 21 November 2020 (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.