Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathal Mac Coille

Add links
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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 19:03, June 28, 2009 (UTC)

Cathal Mac Coille

[edit]
Cathal Mac Coille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Page is non-notable. Filled with original research (References like ""The matriarchs of Montrose". Irish Independent. 2008-10-25. [1]." make no mention of the person involved). His only other mentions are just briefly in an article, or articles in the "opinion" section, which are not reliable sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to plagiarism and original research synthesis concerns, there are also flat out inaccuracies as demonstrated by looking at the sources. The end of the page is a trivia section merely mentioning who he interviewed without any proof of notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To condense the argument for delete - there are ten sources used. 3 are primary source and do not count towards notability. 5 are blogs run in "opinion" sections of newspapers and cannot be used for notability. One is the Irish Examiner, which mentions Cathal in a list of other people who worked for a company and nothing else about him. The other is an Irish Independent article that talks about the company's reporting on the 2008 election and merely mentions him in a list of others. Neither of these two count towards notability per WP:BLP. Thus, BLP policy states that there are no sources proving notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, please note that the article was considerably developed when I first edited it. I also don't think it is fair to use the above reference against me as I was asked to provide it by someone at DYK and never claimed that it mentioned the subject of the article. It mentions a show he presents. But again I can see I have touched someone's nerve by trying to meet the standards of another. :( --candle•wicke 19:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically (or not?), you have referred to a source added to back up a "most listened to radio programme" claim already present in the article at this time. --candle•wicke 19:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source violates WP:OR, as do many of your sources. Most of the articles merely lump the individual with others on the program. Regardless of what the reviewer at DYK said, they should have said that you failed to prove notability. John Murray (broadcaster) and Rachael English also suffer from this problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well couldn't we just remove the unwelcome links? These references are only secondary sources. They are barely used in the article. All of the content in the article has an attached link. None of the article is original research. I created the article, and knew next to none about the man, before finding sources. In my opinion it is quite an encyclopedic article. Compared to some biographies, it is much better quality. Thank you,  Cargoking  talk  20:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does it violate WP:OR? The source is used to verify it as "most listened to radio programme" which, at least as far as I can see, it does. And if it doesn't there is another citation from an entirely different source right beside it. The presenter is mentioned in this source by name and with the exact same spelling as the title of this article. So how exactly is a presenter of a country's most popular radio programme worth a deletion nomination? I can see how you might say it is not perfectly sourced but since when has it been appropriate to delete an article with sources? --candle•wicke 21:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All AfD pages can be improved. It is suggested to improve them during the AfD process in order to keep the page and meet inclusion requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. :( So AfDs are about holding a gun to the head of an editor and pulling the trigger (or deleting) if they don't respond to the nominator's desire to improve quickly? --candle•wicke 00:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not our pages. We do not own our pages. There is a strict requirement for inclusion of BLPs. These series of pages haven't really proven notability as BLPs. As you even stated, one of the pages was heavily edited before you worked on it, so why are you taking it so personally? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have gone off the point again. When did I claim it was mine or that I own it? I simply questioned you on the context of the discussion that led to this debate and then questioned you on what appears to be a contradiction in your nomination and the note that you left on my talk page. Dravecky has mentioned some of this below as well so I can only presume I am not going completely senile (yet). --candle•wicke 01:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question- "When did I claim it was mine or that I own it?". Answer - "So AfDs are about holding a gun to the head of an editor and pulling the trigger". Such an extreme response as the above suggested a personalization of the process. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand that. It was not said with any anger (I might at least have used an exclamation mark otherwise) but perhaps the choice of words was not the best. What I meant was are AfDs about deleting pages when one editor does not respond to the desires of another editor to prove notability in time? Or are they more about deleting pages when one editor does not respond to the desires of another editor to turn the article into a fully fledged FA quickly? --candle•wicke 02:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many stubs that don't have some of the problems that this article has. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as source cited as a prime reason for deletion is used to back up a fact in the article about the program the subject hosts, hardly "original research". I find it an odd notion than an unreferenced claim about popularity would be preferred to a properly referenced one. - Dravecky (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary reason to delete is lack of notability - sources used are from blogs or only mention the name of the individual and nothing about him. The only information about him is coming from primary sources, which cannot prove notability. In a BLP, "no claim" is the preference to a claim with poor references. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way Ottava, "this is per the Wikipedia talk:DYK discussion about a series of bad articles put forth by you" (message I received on my talk page)? I am confused about the meaning of this. I went to that discussion and I found that it was you who brought up the topic of nominating them all for deletion when nobody else had expressed such an idea and then you seem to have given yourself permission to carry this out several days later when nobody responded. "This is just the first of a series" - am I allowed to ask in advance the identity of the rest of this series and when you plan to nominate them? I would like to be able to pencil it into my schedule - I wouldn't want to have them all deleted without comment while I turn my back for a few days. Will they all have been nominated by the end of June? --candle•wicke 21:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is standard to place things up at AfD where discussions about notability and the rest go. DYK's talk page is not for such a thing. The person who put up the original entry was not keeping up, so I listed it myself. Also, I listed two other articles above that will be followed after for having the same problems if consensus is to delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here is a normal everyday news story on the website of Ireland's most read newspaper. It clearly has the day marked. It is quite obviously not a blog. The source though to do with Eoghan, is opinion. But in Cathal's article, it cites what Eoghan said:

Eoghan Harris criticised Mac Coille in the Sunday Independent for his "lengthy yet largely ineffectual pursuit" of Sister Marianne O'Connor on Morning Ireland in May 2009, which saw her "runs rings around him mostly because he cannot come up with a killer question".

Only stating Mr. Harris' opinion. The article is not relying on that one source.  Cargoking  talk  22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a blog at all. It was published in the newspaper. The writer is also notable, both as a journalist and a senator. Are the words of US senators dismissed on Wikipedia too? --candle•wicke 22:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP... "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." --candle•wicke 22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't subject to the editorial control and are clearly marked "opinion" for a reason. Also, the rest of BLP makes it clear that you must fully attribute the information from blogs. Once you do that, every single line will have attribution to others, which reveals that this is not really a notable subject. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, I'm curious again. What is the meaning of the "just drop a note" comment after you slipped in the bit about AfDs being a "viable option"? Did you expect someone else to carry out this for you while you watched from the sidelines? This doesn't seem very transparent to me at all... --candle•wicke 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one that started the thread. However, when it turned out that no one was pursuing it, I put it forth myself. I was gone for the weekend, and, when I came back, no one moved. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody seems to have suggested anything close to an AfD. They were merely commenting on an ongoing problem with several editors. For instance, Gatoclass said:

That doesn't mean however that they don't meet DYK requirements - there are a great many DYK submissions that are thin on content but meet the requirements, and I see no reason why we should single out Candlewicke for attention just because he is a freqent contributor. The hooks are another issue - if a hook is problematic, a more appropriate hook should be found. But that alone wouldn't be a reason to start disqualifying articles.

Giants27 replied:

I agree with Gatoclass on this one, if it passes the requirements (and isn't a copyvio and such) then it's fine, however a hook is key but like mentioned it shouldn't be used to disqualify articles instead the more discussion that occurs the better because then more hooks can be found and the best one available can be used. And I know some of my DYKs in, the, past have been content light but they still got the six hours because they qualified.

Dravecky then commented: "This is a problem with multiple DYK nominations at the moment and I'm hopeful that focused attention by multiple reviewers can clean this up a bit."

So where did your idea of nominating several of my DYKs at AfD come from when multiple editors (2 sysops and a rollbacker) did not seem to be making such a case at all? --candle•wicke 00:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can nominate for AfD, and none of them examined the links closely enough to see that many of the references didn't prove notability under BLP, especially with only a casual mention, primary sourcing, or being in opinion pages and not reliable sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I accept anyone can nominate something for AfD. What I cannot understand is why an editor with as much experience as yourself would nominate an article in which the subject (a) definitely exists and has been mentioned in more than one independent newspaper source irrespective of mentions by RTÉ, (b) has been mentioned in these sources as a presenter of the most listened to radio show in a country, and (c) that you would then use the source attached to the "most listened to radio programme" line as evidence of original research in your deletion rationale as it "make[s] no mention of the person involved". I am not taking the nomination personally at all, rather I just cannot get my head around the reasons for such contradictions. --candle•wicke 01:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP shows that we need to do more than discuss people that simply exist. We must use only the best sources and make sure that they are notable according to our standards. This protects against both vanity pages and pages that could possibly harm. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how this is either a vanity page or could possibly cause harm. --candle•wicke 02:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is rather clear about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the content of Cathal Mac Coille being dangerous? --candle•wicke 02:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this entry meets WP:notability. I've seen vastly worse referenced articles for sportspeople make past AfD but I know that precedent is not a reason for keeping this article - just making the point. Nevertheless, it is well written, well referenced and looks like it will only improve. Gillyweed (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By well referenced, which references do you mean? It was already pointed out that most used only mention him in one line or two, or are from opinion pieces. Either way, the facts contradict your statement and invalidate the above. BLP is very clear about the reference requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely meets WP:notability. Presenter of most listened to show on Irish national radio. Tick. Long standing journo with RTE. Tick. Snappy (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is a column in a newspaper a web-log (blog)? The Sunday Independent publishes all its newspaper content online. Eoghan Harris is a respected journalist, columnist and politician. He is a senator in Seanad Éireann, Ireland's upper house. Just because we are a small country, doesn't mean the four million of us in Ireland don't have an interest in probably the most listened to man on the radio, as he presents the programme most regularly.  Cargoking  talk  08:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Presenter" is not a major position on the program, nor one that really gives them much attention. The lack of references is telling. BLP has higher standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that then means we have a lot of deleting to do. Looks like Ottava has no interest (who apparently is representing the views of six billion people) in any sort of presenter. Bye Bye Rush Limbaugh. Larry King, Jonathan Ross, Jay Leno, Michael Parkinson, Oprah Winfrey, Conan O'Brien, Ant & Dec... and bye bye to anyone who has ever presented a television or radio programme.  Cargoking  talk  14:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are notable because they are in the news. Your statement above does not differentiate between the well known and the lesser known. It also makes you look ridiculous when you would compare this individual to those above. Furthermore, those aren't "presenters". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you asked an Irish person did they know who this man is, they would reply yes. He is very well known here. Don't discriminate the Irish!  Cargoking  talk  14:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If you asked" - not per WP:N. Plus, your statement above is false. If that was true, there would be actual sources on this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First two sentences of Secondary sources in WP:No original research: Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions.  Cargoking  talk  14:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP's requirements for sources are rather clear. Furthermore, the original research part of the above is about an article that doesn't even mention Cathal, which is the very definition of WP:OR. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.... I didn't add that, Candlewicke. Excuse me for a minute, while I revert Candlewicke's edit  Cargoking  talk  15:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering why Ottava is encouraging Cargoking to remove sources from the article now? Or how this is decreasing any original research? But perhaps somone else may care to comment on this illogicality... --candle•wicke 16:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently in Ottava's mind writing "His show is top-rated" is fine but adding a citation that proves his show is top-rated makes it original research, uh, somehow. I made a point of this yesterday and did not receive an answer on this from him. - Dravecky (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made it 100% clear that it is Original Research. It is not fine in any form. Please read the BLP guidelines on information. I find it highly both yours and Candlewicke's comments on the matter highly insulting to Wikipedia and Wikipedia's encyclopedic integrity. This is a BLP. All information in BLPs are supposed to be "highly reliable". This means unquestionable citations that spell out clearly what is claimed. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference cited says "[...]Morning Ireland, the country's most listened-to radio programme" which backs up the fact in the article that reads, in part, "[...]Morning Ireland on RTÉ Radio 1, which is Ireland's most listened to radio programme[...]" so I'm missing the synthesis at work here that makes this "original research" by Wikipedia standards. Perhaps you should expand on this point as I am apparently not the only editor not seeing it here. - Dravecky (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article called "Morning Ireland"? No. So, you take one fact Cathal Mac Coille works for Morning Ireland. Then you take another source that says Morning Ireland is number one. Then you combine them. That is the very definition of synthesis. Unless Cathal is mentioned in the source, it cannot be used to say anything about him. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To quote: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." WP:SYNTHESIS. You really need to start reading these policies because statements like the above show an ignorance of the very basics of what they state. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Dravecky, your two quotes prove that the article has plagiarised text. This is another major violation of editing standards. The fact that you quoted both above and didn't notice it is very disturbing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you mention this "plagiarism" before now? Are you referring to the "most listened to" bit? Why if that had been phrased as "a radio programme with a high audience" you might call that original research (as it only suggests that the programme is popular so it doesn't correspond to the source by claiming that it is definitely the most popular). Three words is hardly unlawful especially if the alternative is original research. The rest of the sentence is nothing like the source. And Cathal is mentioned in the source. --candle•wicke 17:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because Dravecky just pointed it out whether knowingly or not. And Candlewicke, you don't seem to get it. Information not in your sources and directly dealing with the subject is not acceptable in a BLP, let alone in any other page. It is original research. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What "conclusion" do you feel the article reaches in the phrase I quoted that is not stated in the source materials? The information can't be both so close to the source that you cry that it's "plagiarism" and so far from the source that you can claim that it's original research. - Dravecky (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dravecky, unless Cathal is mentioned in the second source, it cannot be used. It is very clear from what I stated above. You should know this, especially when it was made clear twice already. And you can plagiarise one source while using it as part of synthesis. To claim to the contrary is utterly ridiculous. Synthesis is the combination of two sources to lead to something not directly stated in either. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the source? I mean the part in the very next paragraph where it talks about "calibre of its presenters over the years" and one "Cathal Mac Coille" is listed? So this single source verifies that Cathal Mac Coille is a presenter of Morning Ireland and that it's "the country’s most listened-to programme". No conclusion is drawn. The facts in the sentence are present in the source. That mountain you're climbing is a molehill. - Dravecky (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to make such smug comments, please don't do it when it will only embarass you. The source you are using (which isn't even the source in question) says: "the quickest illustration of its importance can be gleaned from the calibre of its presenters over the years". It does not state anything about Cathal being currently on the show nor can you declare such from the source. The rish Independent source, the original research source which has been stated constantly, does not have Cathal mentioned at all. Please explain how a source that doesn't mention an individual can be used as a source for the individual. The fact that you would try to justify the inclusion of this source is blatantly disruptive and unacceptable in any regard. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Can you tell me where I insulted Wikipedia please so that I can apologise to it/him/her/whatever gender Wikipedia is? --candle•wicke 16:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another dead discussion. Enter WikiKnittingCorner. By the way Candlewicke and Dravecky, you are not insulting Wikipedia. You are Ottava... no offense.  Cargoking  talk  17:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is very strict. Your lack of respecting BLP is a serious problem and people have been blocked for egregious abuse in the area. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, who are you threatening to block? --candle•wicke 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that every time you respond, you demonstrate that you didn't read? I was stating how serious the policy is. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What have I not read or what exactly is it that you're asking me to do? I have taken on board helpful comments which make sense in relation to this and other items at DYK - this does not appear to be helpful. --candle•wicke 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I will address this now in relation to the "Rush Limbaugh. Larry King, Jonathan Ross, Jay Leno, Michael Parkinson, Oprah Winfrey, Conan O'Brien, Ant & Dec" reply from Ottava above as it does not appear to have been noticed.

"They are notable because they are in the news. Your statement above does not differentiate between the well known and the lesser known. It also makes you look ridiculous when you would compare this individual to those above. Furthermore, those aren't "presenters."

Now, Ottava, why are you suggesting that notability is based on being "in the news"? How can you presume that this is any less true of Cathal? Based on your own assumptions? And why in all seriousness are you attacking Cargoking's contribution as being "ridiculous"? --candle•wicke 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"why are you suggesting that notability is based on being "in the news"?" WP:N - third party sources and coverage in them. The above listed people have actual coverage. Your individual is mentioned in primary sources, blogs, or in a brief mention without any detail among a list of others. That makes them non-notable. The comparison of the above individual with someone like Rush Limbaugh, Larry King, etc, is highly laughable. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really "highly laughable" in my opinion. I don't know or care very much for Larry King if the truth be told and I had never even heard of Rush Limbaugh until someone mentioned him at ITN a few days ago. You don't care much for Cathal Mac Coille but I know at least as much about him as the other two, if not more. So differing opinions and different perspectives depending on where you are in the world are not "highly laughable". You have not given an answer to why you called Cargoking "ridiculous" and now you have called his view of the world "highly laughable". Would it be too much to ask you to stop attacking the creator of the article? --candle•wicke 19:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personal knowledge is not enough for notability. We have objective standards which this clearly fails. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37 kilobytes later and we're getting nowhere but circles, spirals and loops of all sorts (and that's not even counting the talk pages of other editors who are being harrassed - can you please leave anyone who has the misfortune of commenting on my talk page alone?) Why is Cargoking "ridiculous" and "highly laughable" if personal knowledge counts for nothing (which I quite agree with at any rate)? Your lack of knowledge on Cathal Mac Coille is no reason to subject him to any more of this (I wonder does he even know?) --candle•wicke 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is amazing how you can claim I am attacking people on your talk page when you are bad mouthing me on multiple talk pages. And what is your problem with Wikipedia standards? Why do you think that -you- know better than the WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, and WP:BLP? You don't have the sources because he is clearly not notable. It doesn't matter how many friends you get to support you above, admin closed based on the AfD standards and you haven't provided anything to override the delete rationale. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify these quite serious allegations, I was engaging in discussion either referring to or started by someone or something else in these cases. I have been doing other things too as normal, I should hope you're not going to bother everyone I've spoken with today in relation to other topics. Why "-you-" (as in -me-) when Dravecky, Cargoking, Gillyweed, Snappy, ww2censor (questioned on my talk page) etc. seem to disagree with Ottava as well, I don't know. I didn't recruit these people to back me up and there are some with whom I have had little or no previous association with at all. And Ottava is still unable to explain his personal attacks on Cargoking who has not attacked Ottava in any way. --candle•wicke 20:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no personal attacks from me, but your constant violations of policies and your claims like the above are a severe breach of disruption and are very incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottova. I have seen your post on the Cathal's talk page. Are you saying you wanted me to directly copy copyrighted material onto Wikipedia? That is an even more serious offense. If we were to do that the Wiki could be sued. Nasty.  Cargoking  talk  21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the statements on the talk page are clear that dates and other things are 100% wrong. I didn't ask you to plagiarize, but there is a way to be correct without plagiarizing. All of my articles are able to do so without a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like me to fix these problems?  Cargoking  talk  21:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that you would fix them. All concerns brought up in AfD should be fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMG! What a terribly tedious discussion! Anywho, why is it that the 2 editors who are arguing most to keep this article have not registered Keep votes? Not that its a voting contest or anything. Consensus rules! Snappy (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per all my comments above. (Thank you Snappy)  Cargoking  talk  10:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are also one of the main editors of the page so your keep vote is intrinsically expected and not really important. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I thought the bolded vote made no difference when it was clear from the above that I wouldn't vote delete anyway but I hope returning and leaving it will help end this soon. --candle•wicke 20:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but best to make these things clear, because clarity is what is desired! Snappy (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, as one of the page creators, Candlewicke, like Cargoking, is expected to put forth a keep, so it doesn't really matter if they say so at AfD. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did not do so until asked by a third party so the bottom line is it can be counted if it is desired to do so and if not I'm fine with that as well. --candle•wicke 17:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just pointing out that it was already counted. :P So you don't have to worry about anything. Just like my delete vote is counted without me having to post beyond the AfD. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cathal_Mac_Coille&oldid=1136113284"