Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron of Tirawley

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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baron of Tirawley[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MADEUP. There is zero indication that the titular subject (the "feudal title" of "Baron of Tirawley" and "Baron of Irrus") had any reality before the title was "claimed" by an individual in late 2023, a bunch of websites were created by that individual in late 2023 early 2024 to assert those claims (tirawley.com, irrus.co.uk), and related articles (to act as WP:COATRACKs for those claims) created on Wikipedia. Relying entirely/only on those non-independent, unreliable, and brand new websites. The article's creator has, in effect, said "what other sources could there be (for a new claim)". The article's creator also stating that "the claim has reality as soon as the claim is made". And, while that may be the case (for all I know) in the world of made-up "feudal titles", that isn't the threshold required on Wikipedia. Per related notability guidelines, WP:ENN and WP:MADEUP. (I'm not going to get into the WP:REFBOMBINGing and WP:VER and WP:TALKO issues. Suffice to say that I think we're beyond WP:ATDs here). Guliolopez (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks far too unrealistic and unreliable. The Banner talk 15:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on Google Scholar, I'm getting one valid hit on Google Books, which mentions a surname as holder that's not listed in the article. Therefore fails WP:GNG and yes, seems to be WP:MADEUP. Re the WP:REFBOMBING, yes, they'd all need to be examined. One is a blog on an eircom.net (!) site that, ironically, talks about selling titles :-) Another is a Usenet archive! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and per own searches, which show next to nothing. By no means would all feudal baronies, as opposed to baronies in the peerage, be appropriate topics for Wikipedia articles, and this article is undermined by the way it was created and the nonsensical assertions made by at least one editor. Normal verification and notability rules apply, and are not met here. I will study further, just in case, but for now, this seems a clear case. SeoR (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the content guideline Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:MADEUP. Spleodrach (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.