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 all. Discussions to listify and/or redirect should be made on a discussion page and outside AFD. MuZemike 00:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gillabhrenainn Ua hAnradhain[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:N which demands "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"; a mention in a chronicle isn't enough. These articles contain no inline citations, so it's impossible to establish if such coverage exists. They do contain a list of references, but these seem to be general sources, not directly connected to the individual subjects. Some of the articles contain lists of events during the subjects' lifetimes, without making any connections between the events and the individuals in question. I see nothing in these articles that could not be represented much better in a list.

Furthermore, it was recently decided in a a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump that any large-scale article creation, whether by bot or not, should go through a request for approval. Granted, this decision hasn't been widely advertised, but there is little point in having such a rule if it is not followed. Lampman (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Hi there. Sorry about that. I still don't know how to make inline citations. I agree with what you say. I do hope to add more material to these articles. I just thought it best to create them first. If they fail the criteria, I guess they'll have to go. Thanks for the heads up, Fergananim (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is more, substantial information to be added to these pages, then you should do so. My concern is that there is too little individual coverage of them to warrant stand-alone articles at all. I'd suggest you create lists instead, since then there will be less demand to establish individual notability. Any additional information could fit in a separate column, after "Name", "Accession" and "Death". Lampman (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above suggestion. A list should be better, at least now. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, lists for the abbots, kings etc., and redirects from their names Declan Clam (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List and Redirect The info could be valuable - but better in a List. (Unless one of them did something extraordinary, in which case an article would, of course, be appropriate.) Peridon (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - List and redirect as necessary where they can't be expanded (Maelduin of Aughrim reaches a decent stub size already). Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No he doesn't. In byte size maybe, but the article consists of: Name, Date, Succession, all of which can fit perfectly into a list. Events that took place in his lifetime; peripheral, do not establish independent notability. Lampman (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally the categorization can be left on the redirects. Rich Farmbrough, 20:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep all. I do not hold with these mass deletions. Each article should stand or fall on its own merits, not simply because they're part of a set of articles you happen to have taken a dislike to. There's variable quality / notability across the articles. I'm buggered if I'm going to go through all 38 merely to be able to add my voice to this discussion. There's nothing so urgent that you could not have listed them seperately or, even better, listed a specimen one or two articles before launching into a mass deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sympathy for your viewpoint, however I guess that, reading the articles, a reasonable compromise is to create a single, solid article listing all of them. Whenever one of the entries becomes large enough, a separate article can be easily created. The list would also help not disperde material. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon, your laziness is on your own back, not on mine. I did go through all 38, and there was not a single bit of information that could not have been presented just as well in list form. If you have anything to present against this premise then please, go ahead (btw, there were plenty of Fergananim's articles I did not nominate, because they had potential to meet WP:N). Lampman (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but discourage this type of robotic article creation, since it is evidently problematic. These are not BLPs, which was a major concern at the batch of articles that was deleted which led to the discussion cited by the nominator. Also, these articles are all sourced (albeit robotically) and contain no material that is controversial, and notability is evidenced by the sources. Nevertheless, it is concerning that the same references were used in all of these articles and I think more care should be put into developing each article individually, rather than carelessly copy/pasting the information from one to another. Them From Space 04:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how notability is "evidenced by the sources". For the article on the top of this page, all we have is a mention in the Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland saying "Gillabhrenainn Ua hAnradhain, successor of Brenainn of Cluain-fearta, died". In no way does that constitute "significant coverage", which WP:N demands. The other entries are no different. Lampman (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is somehow absurd. According to our notability criteria, every single playboy playmate is notable, most of whom probably have no historic significance whatsoever, but mediaeval Irish Abbots, who must have been among the most influential Irish people of their time, aren't supposed to be notable because there simply are only a few primary source for them. Well, they simply didn't have as much media back then as we do now (what an understatement)! I really think that mediaeval Irish Abbots are certainly more notable than playboy playmates, and that these articles should be kept. For the future, I someone wants to create a set of articles like these, better try to get a general notability criteria establish at Wikipedia:Notability (people),. etc. If we have a general criteria for pornographic actors, there certainly isn't an argument against general notability criteria for mediaeval churchmen.Zara1709 (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Nobody is saying that there should be no coverage of these individuals, simply that there is no purpose in separate articles when all the information that is available on them would fit just as well into a list. If you disagree with the notability guidelines, then you have to take it up on the relevant guideline's talk page. Lampman (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omg, you most likely have misunderstood me. I didn't reason that we would need to have articles on medieval Irish abbots because we have articles on 20th century playboy playmates. LoL, what kind of reasoning would that be. What I tried to say was that we have general notability guidelines which presume that playboy playmates are notable, because for each one of them sufficient reliable sources could be found. Similarly, we should assume that for medieval Irish abbots enough reliable sources can be found, especially since we probably have enough editors who work on articles about playboy playmates, but we certainly lack editors who work on articles about medieval Irish abbots. So, if Fergananim wants to create a set of articles about mediaeval Irish abbots, let's don't give him a hard time. If you are looking for articles to delete, look at our articles about pornographic actors instead. Zara1709 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if it helps get more Playmate articles up, I will gladly spend a great deal of time on medieval abbots. And abbess. Fergananim (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I would definitely support articles on pornographic medieval abbesses. Zara: you can't wish sources into existence; as far as I'm aware, there is no other source for these individuals than a passing mention in a medieval Irish chronicle, am I right? Anyway, you seem to be the only one arguing now, I think we all agree to put this into list form. Lampman (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At closer scrutiny, the articles seem to violate WP:OR as well as WP:N. The only sources seem to be medieval chronicles, but these need to be backed up by modern, secondary sources to confirm their veracity. In the worst case, these names could be entirely apocryphal, which was not uncommon at the time. So far, the only arguments for keep have been variations of I don't like it (bundled nominations) and other stuff exists, but I have still to see anyone argue why we should keep articles that so clearly violate some of Wikipedia's most central guidelines and policies, or how they don't. Lampman (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources seem to be medieval chronicles, but these need to be backed up by modern, secondary sources to confirm their veracity. - Medieval chronicles are sources nonetheless. If there are studies putting doubts on their veridicity, they of course should be discussed, but how citing medieval sources equates OR, I can't see. Do we have a guideline or policy for the age of sources? As for the articles "clearly violating" policies and guidelines, I am perplexed. Where is such blatant violation? I simply think that the article creator should work on the articles together in a single list, and let's wait to see what comes out. No need to bash immediately newborn articles which show potential.--Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need go no further than the WP article on the Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland, which says that "The reliability and usefulness of the Annals as a historical source has sometimes been questioned..." And we do have guidelines against ancient sources. WP:RS says that "some scholarly material may be outdated". I take that to mean 50-100 years at the most, not several centuries.

But look, Fergananim has agreed that this material belongs better in list form, as have a lot of contributors here. I personally would be happy to help him with formatting those lists. At least we can all agree on one thing: leave the Playmates alone! Lampman (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the annals should be used with some caution, but that is true of every historical resource. And they are accecpted as reliable by all Irish scholars. Furthermore, they are not ancient - they were compiled in the 1630's from much older sources, many of which no longer exist. In short, the Annals of the Four Masters is regarded as one of the fundamental texts for anyone wishing to engage in Irish history. Now having said that, I will convert all to a list, though leaving the more substancial ones as articles. And can we get a few pictures of Playmates to brighten up this place? Fergananim (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respect the Brenainns. Don't delete, just merge into the appropriate lists - like Abbot of Clonfert and so on. If these little articles are only going to consist of xxx mac xx, King of xxx, died xxx or xxx then they should be combined into lists. It is easier for everyone then. When they get bigger they can easily be daughtered off.--Breandán MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List and Redirect. Many of these articles only contain the name and dates of each abbot, but nothing more. Until there is more information on any of the abbots, the articles should be redirected to Abbot of Clonfert. - Scrivener-uki (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Redirect Separate articles for each is unnecessary when they're so short. No comment on the notability standards for Playmates. :P GlassCobra 23:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fergananim speaks[edit]

Hi boys and girls.

As I said, I put these up so that more could be added to each article at a later point.

Having reviewed other, published sources, since yesterday, I now agree that there may not be much to add to some of them. Yet published sources do exist; they are just not easily available.

However, I will abide by whatever decision is taken. Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: I have plenty of time for Playmates and porn stars, myself. Fergananim (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fergananim, to start with I personally suggest to create a single article/list and merge all content therein. Find sources which support the list : -that is, a source that lists them and says who they are. From that, you have a good startpoint to improve your content. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but what is your position on Playmates? Fergananim (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. They should stay. Like probably your subjects, too. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 20:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Fergananim (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these (like Maelduin of Aughrim) are already long enough to stand as stubs. The rest - for example, Cethernach ua Ermono is barely even a sentence fragment - should be redirects to a list. DS (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at some of them, mention in a standard historical chronicle that someone is in a position that is ordinarily considered notable, such as an abbot, is sufficient. almost always more can be said, as for Mughron Ua Níoc, for there are multiple good secondary sources dealing with this period of history. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 5 October 2009 (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.