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

Ireland[edit]

Prehistoric Irish battles[edit]

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

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Most entries WP:UNSOURCED, or WP:ONESOURCE by Standish Hayes O'Grady from 1892 (WP:AGEMATTERS). Follow-up to

List of battles in Albania
List of battles in Algeria
List of battles in Belgium
List of battles in Croatia
List of battles in Afghanistan
List of battles in medieval India
List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Ireland. NLeeuw (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. Personally, I'd suggest merging the notable/supported entries (like the Battle of Magh Tuireadh and Battle of Maigh Mucruimhe) to Irish_battles#Prehistoric_era. Using WP:CSC as the selection criteria. And redirecting this title there. As an WP:ATD. Guliolopez (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to only move the problem rather than solve it. I am considering nominating List of conflicts in Ireland next anyway, but decided it was best to look at Prehistoric Irish battles first. As such, I'm not opposed to merging/redirecting as an intermediate step. NLeeuw (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Ireland Historical Society[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Sources cited in the article are all primary. Searching on Google Scholar and Google Books, I was able to find mentions of the COIHS in citations and acknowledgements, but no significant independent coverage. Searching online, I was able to find some concerning, scandalous, coverage that still appears to fall short of the ORGCRITE line: two letters to the editor in The Independent ([1], [2]) alleging that the COIHS played a key role in covering up a child sex abuse scandal in the Irish church, and two articles in The Phoenix making the same assertion in passing ([3], [4]). I was able to find exactly one likely (but paywalled) example of significant coverage in an independent RS ([5]) reporting on the same allegations, although even if we assume the absolute best of this source, we fall short of ORGCRITE's requirement of multiple such sources. I tried to look for potential merge targets on Wikipedia but didn't find anything promising. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Christianity, and Ireland. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator source analysis. I also tried to identify a redirect, but the organization appears independent from the Church of Ireland and I couldn't identify another option superior to deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own WP:BEFORE returns the same coverage/mentions that the nominator identified in their own. Namely things like ROTM announcements in the Irish Times and mentions in letters to the editor in the Irish Independent. Or this in The Phoenix. A search in RTÉ returns only a single similar/fleeting passing mention. The only substantial coverage I can find is the same article (titled "Historical society accused of 'rewriting' its own past" and subtitled "Church of Ireland Historical Society removes references to founder following accusations of child sexual abuse") noted by the nom. Which, on its own, doesn't establish independent notability of the org. I also can't conceive of target for a redirect. Or other WP:ATD. Guliolopez (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully, since my paternal grandmother was a member of the CoI. There's just not enough sourcing. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig_Considine_(academic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Craig Considine (academic)

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

I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, Islam, Ireland, England, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for WP:PROF notability, and his Google Scholar profile has only one publication with significant citations [6], so that leaves WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora [7]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, it doesn't seem to me that the related criteria are met. While the existence of reviews in the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Monitor are possibly contributory, I'm not sure (on their own) they reach the thresholds expected by criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff in Aug 2021.)
Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (See The Independent, New Indian Express, IBTimes, and Gulf News.) I think it could also plausibly justify WP:GNG with the WP:SIGCOV in the Houston Chronicle, Needham Times, and the discussion of his broader work in the WSJ review. Meanwhile, People of the Book would qualify as a notable WP:NBOOK on the basis of its reviews in two reliable source outlets. (Middle East Monitor is not such an outlet.) That said, this article is still overloaded with primary sources, unreliable sources, affiliated sources and needs substantial work to improve it -- but deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I want to thank @Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sligo Wild Geese[edit]

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

The only source since 2014 is a brief mention and I can find nothing to indicate any notability. A google search (excluding Wikipedia) find only a few hits with just a couple of brief mentions. A newspaper.com search also returns nothing. KylieTastic (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ireland. KylieTastic (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. A relatively short-lived (local/non-profit/community) organisation that fails WP:CLUB and WP:SIGCOV. (We don't even have sources to establish the basic facts - like when the org were established/established - not to mind anything that establishes notability.) In my own WP:BEFORE, the only news sources I can find include this and this and represent represent the scarcist of trivial passing mentions in (hyper) local news sources (indicating that subject org was not even covered in any great depth in very local news coverage; Not to mind the type of [at least national] coverage that would confirm that the club's activities were "national or international in scale". As would be expected by WP:CLUB.) The only "claim to fame/notability" given in the article, about the org being "notable for many firsts, including their involvement in pioneering north–south co-operation during the beginning of the then fragile Irish peace process" represents flowery editorial and puffery that isn't supported by anything at all...) Guliolopez (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was trying to de-orphan and clean this up but the sourcing doesn't seem to be there. --Here2rewrite (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't the least sourced or most puffed stub I've seen today, or even the second, but it's close enough in spirit (per above) and the first I saw already nominated. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a notable group. Spleodrach (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think with some research, the article could serve an interesting historical tidbit. --evrik ^(talk) 20:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the recent additions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland

Ireland[edit]

Prehistoric Irish battles[edit]

Church of Ireland Historical Society[edit]

Craig_Considine_(academic)[edit]

Sligo Wild Geese[edit]

Others[edit]

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also