Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Tighe


 * 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. Tone 19:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Tighe

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article is very promotional in nature. At the very least it needs to be pared down to something that's more neutral POV. Eeekster (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How does this article differ from other architect's articles such as Lawrence Scarpa, Zaha Hadid, or Toyo Ito? Cdawson640 (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF for the answer to your question. Cindamuse (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thanks, Cindamuse. This is helpful.Cdawson640 (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - this article is basically a bragging page for the firm. Phuzion (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, the article's tone is promotional. My first instinct is to want to delete. However, I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. The subject is highly notable, supported with reliable sources (for the most part). Wikify and edit the article to remove the peacock terms and address the promotional tone appropriately. Keep it; don't delete it. ; ) Cindamuse (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have to agree with Cindamuse. Seems to satisfy WP:RS and falls into WP:N.   Not sure about WP:BLP though... I think it just needs some clean up.  Pmedema (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Obnoxious promotional tone (fixable) but seemingly over the notability bar on grounds of awards and achievement. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep a notable architect. DLAwaster (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs cleaning, not deleting. I've taken a stab at doing that.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:BEFORE suggests that before nominating an article for deletion the article should be checked against our deletion policy WP:DEL and then No 1 suggests that If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing. To me this was a clear case of an article which meets notability and just needs editing - which has already begun.  (Msrasnw (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep Notable. --Elekhh (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the current cleaned-up stubbified form the article is not overly promotional. The awards listed re sufficiently significant to indicate notability. There is also a fair amount of newscoverage, including focused specific coverage, e.g. here. Overall, passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.