Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Ireland. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Ireland|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Ireland.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for Ireland related AfDs

Scan for Ireland related Prods
Scan for Ireland related TfDs

Ireland[edit]

James A. O'Flaherty[edit]

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

Biography of subject that doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:MUSICBIO or other criteria. (Article was created, seemingly, by a family member. And relies entirely on sources written by family members. Was speedy deleted in 2007. Was restored, after request from creator, shortly afterwards - on the basis that notability might be established by "news reports" and having a music retreat "named for him". However, the only news report mentioned (which doesn't appear to be verifiable) seems to be about the music retreat. Rather than the subject. And while it is a credit to the man/family/community that the event was so-named, it doesn't establish notability. Even if the event was notable (and I would question whether it is), notability isn't transferrable.) My own WP:BEFORE has returned nothing to indicate that NBIO or SIGCOV are met. WP:COI and WP:NOTMEMORIAL are also relevant. Guliolopez (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Military, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG all sources seem to be related to the subject. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator nailed the problems with the article. It is possible that the Irish music retreat was named after this gentleman, but the retreat itself is not very notable and the gentleman's music career appeared to be semi-pro at best. This article is clearly an attempted memorial that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, where notability is key. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for the reasons outlined in the nomination InDimensional (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Rabbitt[edit]

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

Local politicians don’t have presumed notability per WP:NPOL and leading the council for a year as Cathaoirleach doesn’t get them past the notability threshold either. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. In terms of NPOL, the role of chair (mayor) of Galway County Council isn't an "international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office". In terms of SIGCOV, the only sources in the article are either primary or the very definition of trivial passing mentions. In my own WP:BEFORE a Google search (which which returns barely 50 results) and a news search (which returns only opinion pieces and passing mentions) does not amount to SIGCOV. Certainly any more than we would expect for any other candidate for a local office. As we (quite correctly) do not have articles for Mayor of Galway County Council or Cathaoirleach of Galway County Council, I do not see how a redirect would be an appropriate WP:ATD. Or draftification or other forms of ATD. Hence the only action I can support is deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and per WP:NPOL. Spleodrach (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on the provision of significant substance about their work in the role and significant reliable sourcing to support it — but this is just "mayor who existed", supported by a minimal smattering of primary and unreliable sourcing with no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy referencing shown at all, which is not what it takes. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Gill (priest)[edit]

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

There appears to be insufficient notability for this priest. Chumpih ^t 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Or, failing that, redirect to Archdeacon of Cloyne. As with other similar articles by the creator contributor, there is nothing to indicate that the subject has any notability independent of the role/job that they held. The sources in the article (including this directory style entry alongside HUNDREDS (thousands?) of other clerical people) do not constitute material biographical coverage. Nor can I find any. The sources barely support (as the creator, frankly, should have done) a sentence or two about the subject WP:WITHIN the article on the role that they held. Other than for the "completionist" reasons that seems to have driven most of the creator's submissions, there is nothing to support or justify a short sub-stub/stand-alone biographical entry. Guliolopez (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to validate notability of this individual. Unlike bishops, archdeacons are not inherently notable by virtue of their office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Leicester and Leinster[edit]

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

There is no real rivalry between these two sides, with no WP:GNG coverage of the rivalry, just a collection of stats with violates WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. Similar discussions such as this and this have shown a clear consensus on these sorts of articles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, Ireland, and England. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Republican Movement[edit]

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

Was never notable in the first place, although it had the potential to be at the start. There was a brief flurry of news in relation to a statement they put out, but no sources that covered the organisation in any significant depth. No publicity since that statement at all. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Terrorism, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references already present in the article establish notability. Even if the group is no longer active, "once notable, always notable." I seem to remember someone saying that some of the people in the handout photo that appears in several of the references weren't holding their weapons correctly, implying that this was never a serious group. I can't confirm this, though. Nonetheless, reliable sources have covered this group, which means it's notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was never notable, although it had the potential to be if it had actually done anything. But other than releasing a statement, they've done nothing. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland). (And remove from Template:IRAs.) Per nom, the (current) topic/subject of the title (the org which asserted this name) is not notable. And never was. The only coverage suggests that a group(?), giving itself this name, released a statement (maybe two), back in 2019/2020. And that, seemingly, is all. The coverage, of those statements, doesn't meet WP:SIRS. In which the "S" ("S"ignificant) requires "significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth". The coverage does NOT cover the subject org in any depth. At all. (For all we know the "group" could have 2 members. If even that.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The comment above mine makes a great point; once notable, always notable. Even if the group isn't as active as it used to be, there's nothing wrong with keeping it around as it provides insight into the contemporary Dissident movement.

Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as repeatedly pointed out, it was never notable in the first place. A brief flurry of news about a single statement does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. See also guidance at WP:ORGDEPTH, there has to be coverage that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland) - Per the argument put forward by Guliolopez. I agree with Guliolopez and Kathleen's bike that sources (or rather lack of) indicate that this organisation did not ever materialise in reality. While it's supposed founding was touted, it was never actually active. One press release is not enough to justify an article. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group), where it is already mentioned. I agree that the topic is not standalone notable, but it's better discussed at the article where it splintered from, rather than just redirected to the main article on the republican movement. -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Peacock[edit]

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

No indication that the titular subject (the diarist/author) or the actual subject (the diary) meet any applicable criteria. In terms of the writer (the author of the diary), writing a personal diary (even in the 18th century) doesn't make one a notable author (WP:AUTHOR). In terms of the book (based on the diary), there is no indication that WP:NBOOK is met. (It appears to be like any other history work based on collated primary sources). WP:GNG is also not met. Frankly, and with every respect, this is another in a long-line of contributions from a Wikipedia editor who should have considered WP:WITHIN. (And perhaps used this source within and in support of other articles. Rather than writing individual articles on every historical person/name they encountered.) I cannot conceive of any appropriate WP:ATDs (redirect/draftify/etc). And so am left with AfD... Guliolopez (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Discussed here [1] and here [2], offering discussion around the time he lived in and the social "things" he kept record of, which really need to be incorporated here so we understand why this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ehmm. Is being mentioned, somewhat in passing, in two books (in addition to his own diary) significant coverage? To the extent that WP:NBASIC is met? In "Marriage in Ireland, 1660–1925" (2020), Luddy and O'Dowd (pages 115, 229 and 231) simply use Peacock (alongside at least a half-dozen other diarists and contemporaries) as an example of the [pervasive/male] opinion that the "purpose in securing a wife was to have someone look after the house and children". I do not have access to "A New Anatomy of Ireland: The Irish Protestants, 1649-1770" (2004), but Barnard doesn't appear to deal with Peacock as a topic directly or in particular detail. I'm clearly missing something, but WP:NBASIC expects that primary sources (like the subject's own diary) don't contribute to notability. At all. And any secondary sources would need to be substantial and/or numerous. And the few mentions in those two works don't seem to be either.... Guliolopez (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More for the social context in which he was alive, they fit him into the social history of the time. Oaktree b (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this [3] and this [4], second one is probably longer. We should at least have BASIC. Oaktree b (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The first of those is the same Barnard work ("A New Anatomy of Ireland"; 2004) that you (and I) have already mentioned. It's not additional/extra coverage. The second of those is also Barnard (in "The Irish Book in English"; 2006; edited by Gillespie & Hadfield). Essentially the same coverage. Condensed into a paragraph or so. We're still at 2 (perhaps 2 and a half) relatively short mentions in works which are (quite substantially) about something else. As per my nom, if Peacock is relevant only in the context of the "social history of the time", then that's how he should be covered. WP:WITHIN the relevant section of History of County Limerick or Agriculture in Ireland or Marriage in Ireland or similar. JUST as those works do. Not as a biographical subject/topic in own right... Guliolopez (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Republic of Ireland[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Ireland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found [5], [6], and [7] which may be helpful in determining notability. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to hear a review of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland

Ireland[edit]

James A. O'Flaherty[edit]

Tim Rabbitt[edit]

Arthur Gill (priest)[edit]

History of rugby union matches between Leicester and Leinster[edit]

Irish Republican Movement[edit]

Nicholas Peacock[edit]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Republic of Ireland[edit]

Others[edit]

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also