Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorteens Castle

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gorteens Castle[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Besides WP:Trivial mentions in ruin databases that confirm it exists, the only non-trivial mention is one database that goes into greater detail. I can't find anything that indicates it is independently notable. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 08:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 08:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 08:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unfortunately. I love castles, but could find zero hits on any of the search engines. Shouldn't say that, there were two hits... both to this Wikipedia stub. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The entry in the Database of Irish Excavation Reports gives a 1905 publication as a reference. As well as that it is also discussed in Ben Murtagh's "Kilmurry Castle and other related sites in Slieverue parish", Old Kilkenny Review 52 (2000).
There is a more general point that careful consideration should be given when nominating articles on historic sites for deletion and just because references are difficult to find online does not mean they don't exist. This is precisely the kind of site that will have attracted antiquarian interest, especially form the 19th or early 20th century – sources which you're unlikely to find outside of a library. Any structure which has stood for that long is a significant part of the landscape. Illustrating that is the fact that in the England (I am less familiar with Ireland) any building older than 1700 which survives in a reasonable state is protected from unauthorised change under law and will have reports written about it.
For anyone interested in Irish castles I can recommend Tom McNeill's book on the subject; he makes the interesting point that Irish castle studies has been given relatively poor treatment because they are seen as symbols of conquest. Nev1 (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I don't believe that shows it has been the subject of significant coverage to make it independently notable. Perhaps it could be included in the County Kilkenny article. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the site in two separate academic journals is plenty to demonstrate notability of the site, and it is likely that other sources exist which are not searchable online. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I understand the article is/was a stub and has issues, but I don't understand why the structure isn't obviously a suitable subject for Wikipedia. I've expanded the article and added citations, for what it is worth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I fail to believe a substantial ruined castle isn't notable and, as has been pointed out, it was recorded in a 1905 book. All the same, I'd be interested to know whether it is recorded on any Irish heritage list. Sionk (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being recorded as existing in a 1905 book, or even two books, doesn't mean it has been the subject of significant coverage. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article may have been in a poorer state when originally proposed, but the cites and content seem to meet the criteria expected for articles in general (WP:GNG) and buildings specifically (WP:GEOFEAT-buildings). The two excavation reports from 1993 and 2003,[1][2] would seem to represent non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. I'll have to AGF on the 1905 book as I can't seem to find the supposed references in the Carrigan text[3], but while the article could be clearer that the only (overground) remains are the ruined gatehouse and some walls, I'm not seeing the case for outright deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Castles simply are notable. If you named a fast food restaurant a "castle", it would be notable too, frankly. --do ncr am 03:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: I'm unclear, is this sarcasm? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Clearly a notable archaeological site. The link to a SMR record is sufficient to verify that this is not a hoax. It is called a castle because it was one. A pub near where I live is called Windsor Castle, but that is not notable. A burger joint given the name 'castle' would be NN, but a genuine medieval castle is likely to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For God's sake, it's a castle! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2016 (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.