Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick O'Shea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Courcelles 02:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Patrick O'Shea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article Patrick O'Shea was written and edited by himself, no other editor contributed to the article save for minor grammatical fixes and adding tags. The only notability the subject can claim is a passing write up in a local newspaper, seen here. The only links the subject can provide for sources are his own person website, the website of his employer and a localized wiki which he crated and edited. The subject does not meet the standards set by Wikipedia:Notability (people); O'Shea has not received widespread attention, has only passing mentions of his name even in local settings, he has not produced material which is cited by his peers, he is not well-known in his field and he has not had a significant exhibition. Given O'Shea had to create and edit his own article entirely, it appears more to be self-promotional than providing any benefit. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete wp:MUSICBIO is the relevant notability guideline in this case, not wp:artist. Nevertheless, he doesn't seem to meet either of them. Yoenit (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for the wrong categorization, and thank you for fixing the link. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable COI biographical article without reliable sources. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Also appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC.VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Non-notable BLP without reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Pure self promotion per nom.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. clearly fails wp:MUSICBIOTeapotgeorgeTalk 17:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Obviously fails WP:MUSICBIO and a self indulgent spamfest to boot. ukexpat (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ACADEMIC, self promotion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing basic notability standards. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems I have annoyed Xanderliptak by challenging his authority in the field of heraldry, which is dubious, but that is a separate issue. At any rate, this is a waste of my time, so by all means delete the article. However, be wary of the fact that Xanderliptak does seem to use this tactic as a means of attacking those who dare to question his contributions. Administrators should bear this in mind. The article had been up since November 2007 with no significant objections. Only now, when he is questioned on another article, does Xanderliptak lead the charge for deletion. That's fine. Xanderliptak will now have perhaps more attention than he wishes from true experts on heraldry examining his myriad "contributions" (themselves an underhanded form of self-promotion, as he is using Wikimedia Commons as a forum to establish his expertise in heraldry by flooding it with his own art work). Incidentally, if one wants to reference self-serving pages set up by the subject, consider the following: [[1]] Seaghdha (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from attacking me simply because I have found your article and marked it for deletion. It is not uncommon for these articles to exist for years unnoticed, because no one is looking for them or even knows how to find them. Existing on here for three years without any other editor contributing to the article only edifies the notion that you lack notability. An editor marked this article as needing proof of notability, which you removed without providing ample sourcing. I re-added that tag, which you immediately removed again without adding references showing notability. It was only then that I marked your article for deletion, because you insisted of interfering with the tags without providing the appropriate information which is required to removed the tags. As you can see from the vote above, it is the Wikipedia community as a whole, and not just myself, that believes you have failed to adequately provide sources to prove notability. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to at least see a return to a less strident tone, but my point about Xanderliptak's category page on Wikimedia Commons remains relevant. It is formatted unlike any of the others in the Category, and its title should be "Coats of Arms by...etc." Self-promotion through the back door. Meanwhile, it is not appropriate to refer to a person as "Mr. X" when one is aware that the person in question holds a doctorate. Dissertation abstract is found at [[2]] (but email link is out of date). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaghdha (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a category page on Wikimedia Commons, and the convention there is to organize images under a category named after the artist, e.g. [3]. Xanderliptak has done nothing out of the ordinary there. Yworo (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the joy of loopholes... Seaghdha (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be able to question Xanderliptak's motives for wanting to delete the article, but how do you account for the 8 others who think that this article shiould not excist? What I can't understand is how this article about a non-notable subject was able to last as long as it did. I guess when there are millions of articles to go through, one or two make it through the cracks.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like you are not notable when you have to create your own article. It looks worse when no one else edits your article. So someone added a tag questioning notability, which you removed. That is disingenuous, considering your obvious bias, since the article is about you and you are the only editor. I re-added it, and again you removed it, basically claiming that you know you're well-known, even if no one else knows. This is why it was nominated. I am sorry you are taking this so personally. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be able to question Xanderliptak's motives for wanting to delete the article, but how do you account for the 8 others who think that this article shiould not excist? What I can't understand is how this article about a non-notable subject was able to last as long as it did. I guess when there are millions of articles to go through, one or two make it through the cracks.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the joy of loopholes... Seaghdha (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a category page on Wikimedia Commons, and the convention there is to organize images under a category named after the artist, e.g. [3]. Xanderliptak has done nothing out of the ordinary there. Yworo (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to at least see a return to a less strident tone, but my point about Xanderliptak's category page on Wikimedia Commons remains relevant. It is formatted unlike any of the others in the Category, and its title should be "Coats of Arms by...etc." Self-promotion through the back door. Meanwhile, it is not appropriate to refer to a person as "Mr. X" when one is aware that the person in question holds a doctorate. Dissertation abstract is found at [[2]] (but email link is out of date). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaghdha (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from attacking me simply because I have found your article and marked it for deletion. It is not uncommon for these articles to exist for years unnoticed, because no one is looking for them or even knows how to find them. Existing on here for three years without any other editor contributing to the article only edifies the notion that you lack notability. An editor marked this article as needing proof of notability, which you removed without providing ample sourcing. I re-added that tag, which you immediately removed again without adding references showing notability. It was only then that I marked your article for deletion, because you insisted of interfering with the tags without providing the appropriate information which is required to removed the tags. As you can see from the vote above, it is the Wikipedia community as a whole, and not just myself, that believes you have failed to adequately provide sources to prove notability. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:03, 27 September 2010 (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.