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 keep. --james(talk) 13:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Flanagan[edit]

As article and discussion suggest themselves, there's a lot of unverified information here. Disregarding the unverified information, notability would be highly suspect. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on later discussion. Apparently the thing that was very, very weird was the subject of the article himself. BigHaz 08:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ~ all information is useful to some degree ... its up to the reader to ferret out what is worthy and and what is not.

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.