Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorcán Ó Muireadais
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lorcán Ó Muireadais
Delete: Fails WP:NOT (notability guidelines) for inclusion. Spaceheatercozitiscold (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep Notability is asserted ("founded the first Irish summer school" and the magazine he founded), but very few ghits under that precise spelling. Justin Eiler (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. People may be looking for references under the wrong name. He was born Laurence Patrick Murray and Lorcán Ó Muireadais is a Celtisation. Ulster Biography has it as Lorcan O Muireadhaigh. Also other spelling variations. [1] [2] Project MUSE describes him as a language-activist [3] (you'll need to access from a library with a sub) Note that he has an entry in the Ulster Directory of Biography (one of the longer entries)[4]. Anjouli (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK - I hope those who have voted !keep will improve and update the article so I can withdraw the nomination. Thanks. Spaceheatercozitiscold (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Copy vio removed from here. Text can be found at [5]. Anjouli (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete - I'm sorry to do this so soon after the nominator voiced a desire to withdraw the nomination, but I've looked through everything I can find online using the spellings and diacritical variations mentioned above and can't find anything on this person. Further, the claim to notability--the establishment of the first Irish-language summer school program in the village of Louth--is extremely weak. As far as I can see, then, the subject fails WP:V and WP:N. However, it seems to me that if more information on this subject exists, it would be found offline, which is what prevents me from leaning too strongly towards deletion. Incidentally, has anyone found the name of the school he founded? -- jonny-mt 14:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment That's what frustrates me about WP and written references. (See remarks on my user page). If you don't consider the Ulster Directory of Biography reputable, I've just found pretty solid evidence he is notable in "Postcolonial Discourses" (G. Castle). Seems he got around a bit and was a highly proactive Irish activist in his time. But if we are restricted to on-line sources, then I guess the article is a dead duck. Anjouli (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) If you have source, then by all means please update the article! Wikipedia has never restricted itself to online sources, and my comment was meant to encourage someone to find them offline (it's kind of hard for me to find information on a 19th-century Irish priest where I live). If the article is updated to show the notability of the subject, I'll gladly change my opinion per WP:HEY. --jonny-mt 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I take your point. However it has always been protocol (and I've been here a while!) that a valid argument against an Afd is to demonstrate that the subject is notable and that references exist. i.e. it is enough to cite them here. They can't be disregarded just because they are not in the article (yet). Nothing personal and I don't mean you, but time and again I'm seeing Afd Delete votes based on things other than notability e.g. the article needs work, the references are not listed in the article, it's a stub, it's POV. None of these are reasone to delete. It's a worrying new trend that never existed on WP a few years ago. Anjouli (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're right; those are not valid reasons to delete articles. My request for you to update the article is based on the fact that, simply put, I don't know what your source says until you put it down somewhere. I'm most interested in the claim that he was an Irish activist, but without knowing any specifics I have no way of determining whether that means he simply participated as an individual (not particularly notable) or whether he took a more high-profile role as a leader (notable). I also don't know to what extent the text focuses on him, which is an issue that feeds into both notability and verifiability. --jonny-mt 15:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, fair comment. But on the other hand I'm not going to spend a lot of time on an article that might be deleted and in which I'm not really all that interested. If it keeps, I'll have a go at it. Right now my interest was just to try to save what seems like a notable article stuck here in Afd with all the other junk. Anjouli (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're right; those are not valid reasons to delete articles. My request for you to update the article is based on the fact that, simply put, I don't know what your source says until you put it down somewhere. I'm most interested in the claim that he was an Irish activist, but without knowing any specifics I have no way of determining whether that means he simply participated as an individual (not particularly notable) or whether he took a more high-profile role as a leader (notable). I also don't know to what extent the text focuses on him, which is an issue that feeds into both notability and verifiability. --jonny-mt 15:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I take your point. However it has always been protocol (and I've been here a while!) that a valid argument against an Afd is to demonstrate that the subject is notable and that references exist. i.e. it is enough to cite them here. They can't be disregarded just because they are not in the article (yet). Nothing personal and I don't mean you, but time and again I'm seeing Afd Delete votes based on things other than notability e.g. the article needs work, the references are not listed in the article, it's a stub, it's POV. None of these are reasone to delete. It's a worrying new trend that never existed on WP a few years ago. Anjouli (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) If you have source, then by all means please update the article! Wikipedia has never restricted itself to online sources, and my comment was meant to encourage someone to find them offline (it's kind of hard for me to find information on a 19th-century Irish priest where I live). If the article is updated to show the notability of the subject, I'll gladly change my opinion per WP:HEY. --jonny-mt 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Nomination by sockpuppet of banned editor. One Night In Hackney303 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per One Night In Hackney. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It seems you are both right about the nominator's banned status. However, WP:SK doesn't apply in instances where editors add substantive good-faith comments before the nominator's banned status is disclosed, and so I'm sticking with my opinion barring improvement of the article (which I should have tagged for {{Rescue}} sooner) or information about additional sources. --jonny-mt 01:57, 25 March 2008 (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.
