Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The mcdermotts
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 merge to McDermott. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The mcdermotts
The article was proposed for speedy deletion as non-notable but this was removed. It seems the main editor is copying the text from a book, which was admitted on the articles disscusion page: Im reading a book about the family, and do beleive they played a big part in irish history, please hold on, im not a fast typer, and im picking out the most needed information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eire Family Corp. (talk • contribs) 08:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I also belive there is little verifiable content (I have done some research), and this seems to be more a family genealogy page - where someone is writing about the history of their own family with all the family myths —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamatisk (talk • contribs)
- Endorse deletion under WP:V. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 12:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is a logical contradiction to assert that the article is unverifiable and to assert that the article is based upon a book in the same breath. If the article is based upon a published book on the subject, then it is verifiable. If the article is unverifiable, then it is false to state that the author is taking the information from a book. The two cannot both be true. Uncle G 13:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- The creator has said that the artcile is from a book (for which he gives no referance) but I can find no referance online or in the British Library catalogue of any book or article on the family. Tamatisk 13:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good work on attempting to find sources. That's what we want more of. Uncle G 16:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- And thus it is unverifiable, which would be my reason to endorse deletion of the article. But I think I said that. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 15:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, you didn't say anything like that. You wrote 3 words and a link. I've had to prod you into actually writing down some of the reasoning leading up to those three words. But you still haven't supplied it all. Did you actually look in the British Library, too? If not, where did you look for sources? Uncle G 16:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- And your evidence for accusing me of expressing an opinion without research would be...? REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- You have the burden of proof backwards. There is no justification for assuming that you did anything, in the absence of your saying anything at all about what you did. If I were to state that you did the research, that would need proof. In contrast, a statement that you wrote 3 words and a link (which is what I actually wrote, notice — not anything else) needs no more proof than this diff. I see that you haven't answered either of the questions, or supplied the rest of what your reasoning was. Once again: Where did you look for sources? Uncle G 10:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- And your evidence for accusing me of expressing an opinion without research would be...? REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, you didn't say anything like that. You wrote 3 words and a link. I've had to prod you into actually writing down some of the reasoning leading up to those three words. But you still haven't supplied it all. Did you actually look in the British Library, too? If not, where did you look for sources? Uncle G 16:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- delete. i can't find anything that verifies the differences between the Mcdérímotts mentioned here, and other instances of the surname. this would need better sourcing. i see an assertion of notability with the tie in to a book, but how? as it stands, it seems more appropriate for a genealogy site. the_undertow talk 23:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete There are notable McDermott's and articles about them individually would be appropriate. So might one on the family, but this one isn't much of a start. I don't think it can be done as a summary of one particular book. the only book I can indentify on the family as a whole is: "The Kennedys-MacDiarmids, McDermids-Munros, and other Glengarry-Stormont pioneers / by R.B. (Bob) Campbell and Douglas McDermid. Belleville, Ont. : Mika, 1986. but this will be a genealogy about their role in Canada. DGG 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete per DGG. The McDermotts/MacDiarmuids were a prominent Connacht family, but this ain't the article that should be here about them. MacDermot already has a reasonable start on that article, though - this title isn't even a particularly promising redirect. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- merge into McDermott, the info can serve as disambig, and makes more sense where people can source it from a greater, less-biased interest base. Chris 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- delete and redirect per Grutness sounds quite reasonable. The author of this article under AfD can then contribute to that article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:44, 21 April 2007 (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.
