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. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 01:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Liam Ó Buachalla (historian)

Liam Ó Buachalla (historian) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

One group of articles on local history is not enough to meet WP:PROF,andthe other sources are not enough to meet GNG DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 12:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 12:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 12:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply

It's a sad case when "notability" is immediately obvious to all scholars in the field but it's very hard to prove by wiki standards.

First, it's not "local" history: Munster was one of the four provinces of Medieval Ireland so history of Munster is as important as e.g. history of Wessex or Mercia.

Second, I must again stress that his articles are quoted as a major contribution to the subject in all standard works starting with Irish Kings and High-Kings by Francis John Byrne: "the Early history of Munster has been treated by Liam O Buachalla" (p. 315). Byrne does not state that it's excellent or whatever, but this supposes that this is an important general work on Munster since he doesn't quote any other articles on early history of the province (other quotations are from editions of sources, an article on law-tracts and later (post-Viking) history). Donnchadh O Corrain in ‘A hand-list of publications on early Irish History’ states the following: "The early history of Munster is the subject of a series of papers by the late Liam O Buachalla in Cork Hist. Soc. Jn. 56 (1951) 87-90; 57 (1952) 67-86; 59 (1954) 111-26; 61 (1956) 89-102. While paying tribute to O Buachalla's pioneering work, one must observe that his treatment of the very early period now requires revision for the Eoganacht kingship of Munster was neither as early or as exclusive as their political propagandists might lead one to believe". While O Corrain admits that O Buachalla's view is too straightforward, the Munster articles are still quoted approvingly in Thomas Charles-Edwards' Early Chiristian Ireland (2000). Pádraig Ó Riain in his book on St Finbarr of Cork (1997) amply quotes O Buachalla's unpublished article, that confirms that his work was still an important contribution 30 years after his death.

The problem with all this is that all his articles were published in JCHAS and were basically unavailable to scholars outside Ireland before JCHAS was online (it happened less than 2 years ago). Lantse ( talk) 13:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment (not voting wither way) -- Munster was one of 4-5 provinces of Ireland (depending on whether Meath should be counted). However the author's articles were merely in a county journal. The fact that his work requires revision in the light of later research does not detract from it. On the other hand, the publication of a compendium of his papers, apparently long after his death, indicates that historians considered his work important. If anything very weak keep. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep, albeit weak. He is mentioned here: "The older studies by Liam Ó Buachalla relating to political developments in the south-west of Ireland deserve credit for what they produced from very unpromising and Scanty material." Early Medieval Ireland, 400-1200, By Daibhi O Croinin. So there's been some impact of his work as noted by others. Could be a passable stub. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• weak keep, the refs in the article aren't sufficient but the article creator argues persuasively above - what wp looks for is other people talking about his work and referenced in the article accordingly. Szzuk ( talk) 20:43, 9 April 2018 (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.