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:
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, Rosguilltalk 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
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
Non-notable congressional candidate. He received some attention from national outlets right when he announced his campaign in August of last year, but that's to be expected of any candidate in a competitive House race. From what I can see, he's received zero national news coverage since September 2023. All of the articles cited on the page are campaign-related, and I can't find any non-campaign-related coverage of him on Google from any time, so I don't think he meets GNG. Very much reminiscent of
Kellen Curry, another 2024 congressional candidate who got national news attention right when he launched and promptly faded from view. I'd support a redirect to
2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona#District 1.
BottleOfChocolateMilk (
talk) 02:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support either redirect or outright deleteing, as even with the bit of coverage he has received more recently (he appears to be running a generally more negative campaign rel. to the other 5 in the race) I don't believe he meets notability standards.
Buggie111 (
talk) 14:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: not meeting criminal notability; simply being a political candidate isn't notable. Can be re-created if he wins the political seat, otherwise, not meeting notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect/Weak keep: I support a redirect to
2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona. That being said, while he doesn't meet
WP:NPOL for being a candidate, it's possible he meets
WP:BASIC. What makes this different from other cases, in my opinion, is that the candidature coverage is not
WP:MILL. He's received a significant amount of coverage that specifically goes into detail about his career before running for office. For example,
this Bloomberg article and
this MSNBC article. CFA💬 01:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that the national coverage of him isn't run of the mill, but the problem is that the only non-ROTM coverage he ever received came right when he announced his campaign. As I said in the nomination, he's received no national attention since September 2023. It seems like he made a splash right when he announced because he's running in a competitive congressional race, but I don't think that translates to lasting notability. If he loses this race, will anyone be searching his name in 5-10 years?
BottleOfChocolateMilk (
talk) 04:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi! I made this article...I lost my login for AZVoter so I'll go in my thought process here. Conor has the most cash on hand out of any candidate other than the incumbent in this race. He is polling alright and has four endorsements from people in the US house of reps. So he definitely is getting national recognition. But you are correct, if he loses he will probably be irrelevant. The negative campaigning is something I wanted to add but this was my first article so I did not really know what to write about.
JustMadeThis4Discussion (
talk) 02:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Raising money and getting a couple endorsements from members of Congress is not what I meant by "national attention" (we're talking about news coverage here) and does not establish notability. See
WP:NPOL.
BottleOfChocolateMilk (
talk) 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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
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