Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat O'Donnell

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pat O'Donnell[edit]

Page Created for soapboxing purposes G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 08:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, otherwise NN. JBsupreme (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if its for "soapboxing" then I suggest WP:FIXIT not delete it. What is the rationale behind deletion, is it based on notability, unreliable sources etc? I remain unconvinced because I dont hear a reason to actually delete it.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this as per advice by mediator at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-6/Corrib Gas. Ths article is being used to soapbox and is not notable G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 10:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is coverage in reliable sources but I think that this is only temporary notability and that this falls under WP:NOTNEWS. If there is anything that should be included it should be merged into Shell to Sea rather than being in a separate article. Smartse (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, individual is not notable. Snappy (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borders on WP:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe deletion would be premature; events in north Mayo are currently taking a similar turn to last summer's. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No crystal balling, please. Snappy (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see [1]. Predictably, O'Donnell is back in the news. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And [2], [3], [4], [5]. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable. Canterbury Tail talk 12:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Canterbury Tail. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:30, 10 June 2009 (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.