Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Arthur O'Keeffe

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. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Arthur O'Keeffe

Clearly an autobiography, not notable. Format is a mess, the article has a talk page for a reason. Biased. Vaniac 16:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius 21:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete autobio and doesn't pass bar of notability. --Etacar11 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cantras 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improved but allow the full 5 days for the author to clean it up and assert notability - nominating an article for deletion four minutes after it was created seems a little harsh. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AfD is often a better way to get articles to improve than just covering them in cleanup tags, and it means that, if it doesn't improve, it will be gotton rid of. J Milburn 19:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 22:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is a very effective way of getting to articles to improve, but after cleanup tags have failed to work. It's not the first step. Most of WP articles either have cleanup tags or could well warrant them. Only someone with experience in WP can construct a good article the first shot. If given help, not negative formulaic comments, the article can generally be improved. Then , if the tags are not given any attention, a friendly warning often helps. If a friendly warning doesn't help, then either proposed deletion or AfD is appropriate. But if we wee to Afd all the new articles that needing improvement, we wouldn't have time to work on the articles that really do need discussion. Just as with user warnings, there should be a succession of steps. Frankly, I can think of little that would justify an immediate AfD--if it true junk, then a CSD, if not sure its remediable, then prod. But otherwise, a tag and a chance. And a further comment obn fairness: nobody notified the author!. (I just did) DGG 07:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My last intention was to be harsh, being that I am not a very expierienced user, I figured that AfD could be used as db tags except on articles that might not be such obvious candidates for deletion. Next time I will certainly tag articles with cleanup tags first, and try to clean them up myself. That being said, this is very obviously an autobiography and there is a WP:COI for that reason. Although now that I do see that it was a bit harsh, Wikipedia isn't a place to "get your name out there". I hope you'll agree. Vaniac 07:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Weak keep if sourced--I think it can be. DGG 06:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 05:52, 6 April 2007 (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.