Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael C. O’Laughlin

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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C. O’Laughlin

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

WP:BLP, based entirely on primary sources with the closest thing anywhere in the entire article to a reliable source being the purely WP:ROUTINE death notice of his father, of a writer and musician whose claims to passing WP:CREATIVE have a decidedly advertorial, rather than encyclopedic, skew to them. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody is entitled to an article just because they exist -- it's an encyclopedia, on which reliable source coverage, supporting a credible notability claim, must be present for an article to become earned. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being the most published in any field is not notable, especially one as narrow as the geneology of a particular country, especially when some of it is republishing works. Being prolific is not the same things as being impactful, especially in the era of the blog.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WorldCat showed nothing and my searches found only one actual link, a November 2015 news article, and there's by far nothing to suggest minimally better regarding article improvements thus delete as there's no hope. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 10 June 2016 (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.