Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh


 * 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   delete. NW ( Talk ) 03:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article appears to fail WP:BLP1E in that the subject is notable for only one event that enjoyed a brief moment of media coverage - his legal case. The facts of his being a professor and the past head of a small organization (that does not, itself, warrant a Wikipedia article) do not contribute to his notability. Geoff NoNick (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake   Wartenberg  03:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete on basis of WP:BLP1E. Comments from Canadians would be helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep (and cleanup). Career as professor is only moderately interesting, but constitutional claim is extremely interesting and notable.  I suppose an article on the case itself might include only a section on Chainnigh (with a redirect), but figure in notable supreme court case reaches notability.  LotLE × talk  01:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication of importance as an academic or otherwise. legal claim sounds a little absurd-- that's my opinion--and apparently that of the sources as well.   DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the only real claim for notability is the legal case, and I see no indication that it has been consequential for having failed. Sometimes when a case like this fails, it has ramifications for other legal or social/political issues, but in this instance I think it ended up being no more than a curiosity -- as demonstrated by the fact that the only coverage was for the case itself, not for any subsequent fallout.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.