Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enda Caldwell (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 01:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enda Caldwell[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)

This article is an autobiography and has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If the decision is to keep, significant improvements should be done, such as adding additional citations for verification and removing any unnecessary content and information. This article has been brought to XfD before. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My recommendation, in the 2009 AfD, was "delete". While I have not yet (re-assessed) sources and undertaken a more complete WP:BEFORE, a review of the edit history and content (as was at the time of nomination) highlights the same concerns raised back then. That the article still reads as overt promotion, of the type described in WP:G11. (An article created with a promotional intent and "that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements".) Guliolopez (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking at the article, there seems to be no reason to delete this as Edna is notable and the article contains independent references. If the article has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone close to the subject, the article can be edited to rectify this. Rillington (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO per Rillington's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the article has multiple cited sources, only one of them is a reliable secondary source, the article in the Sunday Business Post - and that only mentions Mr. Caldwell in passing in the 8th paragraph. The Radio Luxembourg citation is a primary citation - Radio Luxembourg is where Mr. Caldwell worked. radio waves.fm is in fact repeating an article from the Meath Chronicle. While the article discusses Mr. Caldwell at some length (he is a native of Co. Meath), the Meath Chronicle is about as local a newspaper as you can get in Ireland, now that the Skibbereen Eagle is defunct, and certainly isn't a significant national or regional media publication. I couldn't find other sources that would improve on the sourcing of the article either. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2022 (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.