Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John O'Hart

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John O'Hart

Non-notable. RickK 00:37, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

John O'Hart is one of the most famous genealogist of all time. And as the creator and primary editor of this article I resent any attempt at deletion. [--Wikibancroft63]

• Resent all you want. Discuss the notability of the person. RickK 05:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

• This wasn't added to the main VfD page which is why it's listed on the 2 feb page thought it was created on 1 feb. Weak delete, no evidence of notability. --fvw* 03:12, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • It WAS included. SOMEBODY deleted. I don't feel the compulsion to find out who it might have been. RickK 05:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not according to the edit history I'm afraid. --fvw* 06:02, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
      • How odd. I wonder how that happened? RickK 06:23, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Google returns 1,790 hits for "John O'Hart", and the first bunch appear to be this John O'Hart. --Goobergunch|? 05:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He appears rather notable in the field of Irish genealogy. Not the most critical or reliable genealogist perhaps, but that is a trait he shares with many influential genealogists of the past (and the present, for that matter). His 800-page The Irish and Anglo-Irish landed gentry (Dublin 1884) was reprinted in 1969, with an introduction by Edward MacLysaght, the first Chief Herald of Ireland. Another work, Irish pedigrees; or, The origin and stem of the Irish nation (1876) appears to have come out in several subsequent editions and is still available on Amazon. (I checked the Library of Congress and British Library catalogues. The Irish and Anglo-Irish landed gentry is also available in the Swedish Royal Library.) / up land 12:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. On the basis of Uppland's information. --BM 12:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in light of information provided by up land. GRider\^talk 19:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why don't Uppland put all this stuff into the article in the first place? No vfd question will arise in the future. Mikkalai 21:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I added the bibliographical information now, but somebody more knowledgeable about the field needs to take a look at the article. / up land 22:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This sort of nomination is both fatuous and a threat to the ability of Wikipedia to retain contributors. Philip 02:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Bite me. RickK 05:11, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep present article. For the record, I know for a fact that RickK would never place a fatuous nomination to this page nor would he disrupt the site in any way. He is simply too conscientious a user for that. If he nominated this for deletion, there was a reason, plain and simple. Deep, cleansing breath...aah. - Lucky 6.9 00:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, keep. Nomination was correct though, I sort of wanted to post a comment to support RickK's valuable work. JuntungWu 17:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Kudos to both Uppland for his work on the article and to RickK for nominating it. We should try to keep these discussions civil and focus on the merits of the nominated article and its subject as articles in Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Spinboy 23:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.