Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Michael O'Connor

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. X clamation point 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Michael O'Connor

Please see discussion here. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable and very promotional.--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author has not even tried to establish notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The books are mostly in many hundreds of libraries (, but I cannot tell what role he may have had in them, as his coauthors seem to be much more notable than he is. DGG (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spammy Chzz ► 16:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

certainly true, and doesn't help the article, but not a reason for deletion. If that were the only problem, we could edit the spam. DGG (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don’t think this is a WP:PROF notability case. Perhaps WP:NB criterion #1, but even there it is not clear cut. Media coverage of the subject is difficult to come by, and certainly is not even close to that of some of his co-authors, as noted by DGG.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:55, 8 March 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.