Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy O'Rahilly

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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy O'Rahilly

[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)

There's are little bits and pieces about her,[1][2] but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Her husband, The O'Rahilly is notable, not her. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~Keep - High ranking committee members of Cumann na mBan don't seem automatically encyclopedic. I could be convinced otherwise, but I didn't find much more than what is already presented to that effect. Outside of that, mention of her seems more focused on her husband. That role is encyclopedic and is mentioned on her husband's page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote, see below. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the subject of this article was a founder of Ireland’s first political organisation for women and was at the forefront of women’s political activity for a number of years during the critical period in which Ireland gained independence. The article is very thin on her political activities so may give the impression that she was not very important. The article needs more work but it’s really not a good candidate for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me more that she was a founding member. I don't see any information about the organization that led to the first meeting. Also, I don't see in the sources that she was elected to its founding committee or that she became vice-president (or when). I would put more weight on the encyclopedic nature of the subject if either/both of those elections were discussed in sources. Also, the paragraph in the article: "They lived in New York until 1909, returned to Ireland near sisters Nell and Anna Humphreys. Rahilly assisted on Sinn Fein Daily newspapers. They joined Gaelic League and learnt to speak fluent gaelic. In November 1911, Nannie Maolmire (Myles). O'Rahilly contributed to Irish Freedom, editor of An Claidheanih Soluis, the Gaelic League paper, including the article The North Began that inspired volunteers in November 1913." I think uses O'Rahilly to refer to her husband, The O'Rahilly, but naively read seems to be referring to her. If it is referring to her husband, could it be made more clear? Was she an editor of newspapers, etc? Also, the paragraph seems to attribute "The North Began" to him/them - when it was written by Eoin MacNeill.

If the subject is encyclopedic, and I do hope she is, could you (or someone familiar with the period) make that a bit clearer in the content and citations? Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I've now added the following references
Nic Dhaibheid, C. (2016). "'Schooling the National Orphans': the Education of the Children of the Easter Rising Leaders" (PDF). Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth. 9 (2). doi:10.1353/hcy.2016.0027. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
"WBTM-18 Madame O'Rahilly". dublincity.ie. Dublin City Council. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
"Papers of the O'Rahilly" (PDF). ucd.ie. University College Dublin. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
"Statement by witness Miss Aine O'Rahilly" (PDF). bureauofmilitaryhistory.ie. Bureau of Military History. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
"Cumann na mBan leaflets and circulars, 1917". catalogue.nli.ie. National Library of Ireland. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
Joseph McKenna (2017-06-09). Voices from the Easter Rising: Firsthand Accounts of Ireland’s 1916 Rebellion. McFarland. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-1-4766-2916-2.
Ann Matthews (2010). Renegades: Irish Republican Women 1900-1922. Mercier Press Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85635-684-8.
"Sean Nunan to Michael Collins (Dublin)". difp.ie. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade/National Archives of Ireland/Royal Irish Academy. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
"Domiciliary Searches". Hansard. House of Commons. Retrieved 14 January 2019.

Are we there yet? Mccapra (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the sources match the statements, but looking through the sources, for instance, I do find that she was elected vice-president in 1915 and was re-elected until resigning in 1922. Her activities during that period were often quite important. I think the page is somewhat misleading still, but I agree that she is encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that’s all I was trying to establish. The article is not well written and still needs more work but in the space of an hour or so I was able to find multiple reliable sources showing that she was notable.Mccapra (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given the usual challenges of attitude and time, I think there is enough evidence to justify an article. And having reviewed and rated thousands of WP Ireland articles, and noting that the approach for Ireland is pretty inclusive, at least for some sectors of society, the subject here seems more notable than very large numbers of others we do have already. I also agree, mind you, that the article needs work. SeoR (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As with similar notes from other contributors, while the article does need work (to bulk up the refs, temper the "by association" content, and generally improve readability/etc), I am seeing enough reliable refs to establish independent notability. Guliolopez (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2019 (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.