Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rory 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. Unanimous. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rory O'Keeffe

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

Does not meet the standards for notability detailed at WP:AUTHOR --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The third and fourth references do make it seem as if people are seeking out his opinion, but if that's so, why isn't there more national coverage over what he has actually done? The first two refs are just local human interest stories. The article was created by Hyggemedia (talk · contribs), who I can only assume represents his publisher, which makes it seem promotional (including the promotional picture and picture of his book). Certainly the author doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, but I don't think he really meets WP:GNG either. ubiquity (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book has received no reviews that I can find, and appears in only one library in WorldCat. For the person I find only his own social media. The article was clearly created as a promotion by the publisher, but presumably that lesson has been learned. In any case, this is too soon for this author, although he may become notable in the future. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. LaMona (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked around a couple of times for materials on him, after filtering out others by the same name. They appear to consist pretty uniformly of reporting by him or interviews with him that amount to reporting by him. As interesting as his career has been, I don't really see coverage of him. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOUR and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of the depth of coverage needed for WP:NAUTHOR. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:33, 29 April 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.