Talk:Sadhbh O'Neill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rationale for inclusion[edit]

I want to note the comments of BradV here but point out some errors and inconsistencies. Firstly BradV says that O'Neill was a candidate, not elected. This is not correct, O'Neill was previously elected to Dublin City Council, (as I noted in the article with multiple high-quality sources) as well as being a candidate in the current election (2022 University of Dublin by-election).

What is striking is that of other candidates in the current election, Ray Bassett, Tom Clonan and Hugo MacNeill, have in fact never been elected to anything, all have substantial wiki bios, all are male, and all their bios have raised no objection.

In addition, other males elected to Dublin City Council with little or no other reasons for notability, have bios, again raising no objections: Daithí Doolan, Mannix Flynn, Seán Ó Cionnaith; there seems to be a clear inconsistency here, particularly since the circumstances of O'Neill's election, and her media prominence on climate change both add to her notability.

To be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of sexism, but I think that Gender bias on Wikipedia arises from unconsciously applying different standards, so I'm going to publish again and I'd ask anyone to at least address the above before reverting. Tzq99 (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tzq99: Please read WP:NPOL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tzq99:: There is a long-established rule that being a candidate does not confer "notability", and yes, this sometimes means that a list of candidates has a bunch of blue links (the previous incumbent in an election, etc), and some unlinked or red links. It has some unfair effects, but it reduces the amount of political canvassing spam that would otherwise fill the encyclopedia. Being a city councillor also does not confer notability (while being a member of a parliament does). Find a reliable source for that statement about the "Sadhbh O'Neill effect", and the article will have much more chance of surviving. Was it used in any books or newspapers, perhaps Irish papers which the rest of us are not finding online? Look at the articles for the other candidates and councillors you mention: if you find any which really do not seem to satisfy our notability criteria, then nominate them for deletion. I looked at a couple of her fellow candidates and saw a sportsman (notability is pretty easy for them, as a sweeping generalisation), and a military man with a couple of published works and a varied career, both of whom seem to have reasonable claims to notability without their candidacy. I don't think different standards are being applied because she is a woman: a male candidate of the same age and life history would have the same difficulty being recognised as notable. If she wins the election, then of course she will be notable and this article can be revived and developed. PamD 09:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, thanks for your feedback.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzq99 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article history[edit]

The history behind the current redirect has been complicated by the creation of a "new" article (appears to be a copy of the version which AfD decided should be redirected) at a variant title ( curly apostrophe), which has then been copied back here. The current page history does not recognise the work of earlier editors. Perhaps it doesn't matter while this is a redirect, but should the article ever be reinstated, the full history ought to be reconstructed. PamD 15:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But on checking I see that AfD said not "redirect" but "delete and redirect": so the earlier version should not exist, even in history, and early revisions of this current redirect, which involved an unacknowledged copy-and-paste, should be removed from its history. PamD 15:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2022 Update[edit]

This is an article for a person of note in both Irish politics and climate activism, with plenty of high quality references included.

While I see that previous comments have been made, there are serious concerns that have not been addressed as to why this article has been deleted. It is clear - both from this redrafted page, and the considerable number of news sources relating to O'Neill's involvement in Climate Case Ireland - that this is a person of note, who qualifies for inclusion.

The previous concerns raised about gender bias are very valid, and I would have to ask what value there is in a redirect for users of Wikipedia, compared to a specific article on a person of note who has an extensive presence in both Irish media and politics - and one which might only grow should she be elected to the Seanad MrPaperwings (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iveagh Gardens, PamD, and RL0919: While it seems odd that someone would replace a redirect that was put in place by consensus only the day before, MrPaperwings is claiming that this article has been redrafted. If that is the case I think we'll have to take the new version on its merits, per WP:ATD-R. It would be helpful if an admin (perhaps RL0919) could confirm for us whether it is substantially different to the deleted version, such as the inclusion of new sources that we should assess for WP:GNG. I have done some cleanup to enable us to more easily reassess the sources. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not going to get involved in general discussions in the merit of this article, my aim in moving it earlier today was to ensure its associated talk page included the record of the first AfD discussion, rather than being lost because of the use of the curly apostrophe. Perhaps not the most elegant or efficient way of doing so, and I hope I haven't contributed too much to the confusion. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrPaperwings: It was not appropriate for you to go and create Sadhbh O’Neill (politician) just after the completion of the deletion discussion where it was the consensus of editors to delete and redirect it. Consensus if the fundamental model that enables Wikipedia to function. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was noticeable that none of the references has an "access-date", presence of which is sometimes a giveaway for an old article being revived - but the absence of them all looks a bit unusual. PamD 17:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that this editor doesn't usually add "access-date" to his references: @MrPaperwings: please do so. Websites can change, even newspaper articles can be updated, and it's useful to know at what date the information being used was available on that website. It also helps if the site goes off line and we need to find an archived version. Thanks. PamD 18:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And of course the AfD discussion and decision was not about whether the article was in poor form and could be improved by being redrafted, but whether the person herself was notable enough for a Wikipedia article, unlikely to change within one day. PamD 17:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC) (Edited - I'd got the impression it had been re-created within 24 hours: there was a month between the AfD and the re-creation). PamD 18:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
I am not sure whether Ohnoitsjamie saw this discussion, but the redirect has been restored. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per the comments of Curb Safe Charmer, a new article should be taken on its merits. And I appreciate the work in cleaning up the links.
This was an entirely new, re-written article with well cited sources. While I can see that there was a previous discussion some time ago relating to a redirect, there are a number of concerning outstanding questions about the decision to redirect - not least the question of gender bias.
It is clear from a quick Google search that O'Neill is a person of considerable note from both a political and climate activism perspective. And as such, can I ask why a redirect is preferable to an article with numberous well-cited sources that relate to a woman of significant public interest?
Surely articles may be reviewed over time, and where there is a significant change in public awareness of a person, they may warrant an article?
I take on board the comments regarding the creation of an additional page. Without any explanation at the time, I had understood that the redirect was the result of a naming conflict and therefore believed a new page would resolve this. I now see this wasn't the case.
MrPaperwings (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrPaperwings: As I told you on your talk page, I recommend taking this to deletion review. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrPaperwings: I tried to find sources to keep her at AfD. Her political activity falls under the "being a candidate doesn't confer notability" (unless the alleged "Sadhbh O'Neill effect" is really a thing for which sources can be found?), and I struggled to find Independent, Reliable, Published sources to support her notability as a climate activist. I found, and added, a reliable source calling her a "climate expert" but that wasn't really enough. I don't believe the deletion was because of any gender bias, just sheer lack of available references to support her notability. Even in your revised version there seemed to be very little about O'Neill herself in the sources. Yes, she gets a mention in several sources as one of FIE's people involved in the Climate Case Ireland (although she isn't mentioned at all in that Wikipedia article), but Friends of the Irish Environment itself is a red link, which doesn't help support her notability. If you could find a profile of her in an Irish newspaper or magazine, something like that, it would help support her article. PamD 19:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sadhbh O’Neill (politician)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sadhbh O’Neill (politician) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Sadhbh O’Neill (politician) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 12 February 2022[edit]

Please change the redirect's target to 2022 Dublin University by-election, as this redirect is currently a double redirect through that article's former title. Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --RL0919 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sadhbh_O%27Neill&oldid=1210770928"