Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burke family (Castlebar)

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burke family (Castlebar)[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)

It has been suggested they are not really all that notable.

I am unsure but can see how they might in fact just be publicity seekers of no lasting notability. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its simply a smear page. This is not what Wikipedia should be about.

Jonchache (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In its original version [[1]] it was blatant puffery, it looks like rather a (poorly executed) attempted to create a more balanced article about people who court publicity. But I am unsure the mess can be rescued into anything aproaoching wp:npov. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The family have been involved in several events over the last decade, all covered extensively by the Irish national news media. The article is compiled from information from highly reliable sources. The article means all the critea outlined in Wikipedia:Notability; Presumed, Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources and Independent of the subject. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - multiple notable incidents, all receiving national coverage, and some receiving international media coverage. Certainly satisfies WP:NOTABLE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Christianity, and Ireland. Skynxnex (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I created the article, so obviously believe it to be notable, but won't vote either way, I'll accept the decision. Re: the blatant puffery, everything positive I included in the original was cited, though I didn't understand that some of the citations were to things self-published by the Burkes at the time. I don't really understand how you could argue that they aren't notable, given the extensive coverage of the family over the years in different mainstream national newspapers, including several articles dedicated to summarizing information on the family. I also don't really understand how this is a smear page: no opinion on any of the cases is given, only a summation of what has been published elsewhere. What about Elijah's successful campaign to ensure both he and other homeschooled students could avail of the predicted grades scheme could be considered a smear? Xx78900 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for me the issue is are they in fact individually notable, is there (a kind of) synthesis going on where cases about person A and cases about person B are being lumped together to create an article, when the individual alone would not pass notability? Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that in over half of the sections in the article, more than one family member is involved, I would say no, there is no synthesis. Assuming a section is not about the family as a whole and just starts out as involving, say, Person A alone, persons B, C, and D are also mentioned in sources as being involved or becoming involved in some manner or other. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A response I made to an IP user who had issue with the article, which originally prompted @Slatersteven to start the AfD, for context. Xx78900 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well-cited with reputable sources. JRed176 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as there are no glaring WP:BLP violations and the sources establish that, as a collective, the family passes WP:GNG. Other concerns can be addressed within the article and on its talk page, but the article definitely has a raison d'être. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NOTABLE - Enoch Burke's court case in the national news every day. Spleodrach (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - they have been in the national news regularly for some time and I see no reason to doubt that they will continue to be. This article is really helpful background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:977:9D00:CD40:2B32:CC26:A34 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a genuinely baffling nomination seemingly based off one (non notability related) comment from IP address, with no indication of a WP:BEFORE having been carried out. Evident notability demonstrated by sources in article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enoch's court case appears in the national news almost every day and at one stage or another so did many of his family members. Seems to meet WP:NOTABLE.Dubarr18 (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question - can we just for a WP:SNOW-close at this stage? Or Slatersteven might consider withdrawing the nomination? I would suggest nominating articles for deletion because a clear WP:SPA (with possible WP:COI) forum-shops a complaint is maybe not the wisest course of action. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will bow to consensus, I am still un sure they are really notable (as opposed to publicity-seeking) but the community does not agree. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slatersteven - I'm involved, so can't close, but as nominator, you can - see WP:WDAFD. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how, as I have never had to. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Although I disagree with their protests, I must agree they are notable. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2023 (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.