Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Thomas O'Higgins


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Thomas O'Higgins
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails Notability (people). There are no independent, published sources about the subject of this article.

The first paragraph is about his supposed genealogy. The only references in the entire article appear in this paragraph. The references do not deal with the "Honoury Chieftain of the O'Higgins" at all. The first is that the name O'Higgins is a sept (followers) of the Uí Néill. The rest seem to be about the O'Higgins' in general, and not about "Honoury Chieftain of the O'Higgins".

The second and third paragraphs are a bio on the guy, there are no refs, and nothing listed shows his notability. In the third paragraph there are wiki-links to two societies: Manorial Society of Great Britain & Noble Society of Celts which seem to be an attempt to show this man is notable without having to prove it through references & sources. Both of these two articles are un-referenced stubs, and also created by the same user who created this article:.

The second section of the article is not about the "Honoury Chieftain of the O'Higgins", but about how the Irish government does not recognise even recognise chiefs. The government ceased "courtesy recognitions" in 2003 following scandals dealing with bogus chiefs. This webpage, written by one those who first exposed bogus chiefs in 1999, shows that there has never been a O'Higgins "chief" recognised by the modern Irish government. So basically, this guy's claim to fame is he is pretending to be a "Honoury Chieftain" and joining two "societies" listed on wikipedia.

The article fails Notability (people): There are no independent, published sources about this guy. If you do some googling you get 6 hits on for "Christopher Thomas O'Higgins" -wikipedia. Four of them a mirrors of wikipedia, another is a blurb contributed to a website by a "Dr. James O'Higgins-Norman". I get 10 hits on google for "Thomas O'Higgins" Ballynary -wikipedia. Pretty much the same mirrors of wikipedia and the 'contribution' shown above. Nothing comes up on GoogleBookSearch for "Thomas O'Higgins" Ballynary & "Christopher O'Higgins" Ballynary & "Christopher Thomas O'Higgins" Ballynary. I doubt anything reliable has been written about this person. Celtus (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you address the concerns you have over the reliability and independence of the sources the article currently uses more fully? Geo Swan (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: There was an AfD in September 2007 about a relative of this person which resulted in a delete. The discussion is located at Articles for deletion/James O'Higgins-Norman. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The subject of the article does not establish notability. Much of the article isn't even about him. It looks like an autobiography or a hoax. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom as notability is not established. But I am actually less concerned about the notability of this person than I am about the veracity of this article.  Those familiar with the topic of Gaelic nobility know of the dodgy claims and outright hoaxes that have gone on this past two decades.  In light of that, anything less than clearly made, well-substantiated claims and full disclosure is unacceptable.  It seems this article may have been an attempt to add weight to O'Higgins' claim, even more so before I added the blabber about what the Chief Herald's role.  That was a long time ago, I was a newer Wikipedian then and not so bold.  I ranted about this article on another editor's talk page but I should have done more and proposed it for deletion then. Boston (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you responsible for some or all of the background material on minor irish nobility? If so, congratulations.  I found it quite interesting.  Please consider whether it merits being in a standalone article on Irish minor nobility, or reasonable equivalent.  If this article had the specific information about Christopher Thomas O'Higgins trimmed, it could include the existing material on the minor nobility, and additional material on the controversy over the veracity of those claiming to be hereditary Chieftains, without taking a stand on that veracity.  Cheer!  Geo Swan (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Probably speedy, in fact, for lack of notability, and lack of authenticated sources. Yachtsman1 (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Point of order -- The criteria for speedy deletion authorize the deletion of articles that lack an "assertion of notability". But the criteria do not authorize the deletion of articles based on a concern that the assertions of notability are not credible.  My understanding of the deletion policies is that there is no speedy close for deletion, based on notability, when an article asserts notability.  FWIW if the assertion of notability is patently incredible then it would qualify for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense", not non-notability.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question -- WRT "authenticated sources" -- sources do not have to be online to be considered WP:RS. There are sources where there is a formal or informal consensus that they are not WP:RS, even though they have a surface appearance of being legitimate news organizations.  In this particular case I don't see anyone offering a reason why we should not consider the references this article uses to be WP:RS.  This is the first time, in my four years on the wikipedia, I have seen the term "authenticated sources" used.  I'd welcome an explanation of what respondent thinks this term means, and who they think we should count on for that authentication?  Who do they propose would have the responsibility to initiate this authentication?  Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I looked for policy of persons who are members of the nobility. There is a WP:Notability (Royalty), which also addresses the nobility, minor nobility, and landed gentry.  The essay (did not/has not) acheived consensus.  I thought it was worth mention, nevertheless.  Off the top of my head I think all British peers merit coverage, there aren't that many of them.  It sounds like this guy is "minor nobility/landed gentry", who I agree do not automatically merit coverage.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Offline references continue to be WP:RS, since readers can go to a library and request a paper copy. I am sorry to report I did not fully understand this for a long time, and I used to remove "dead links".  This is counter-policy, when the reference includes sufficient information for a dubious reader to hunt down a paper copy.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- If the relatively brief portion of the article devoted to Christopher Thomas O'Higgins is insufficient for a stand alone article, why shouldn't the bulk of the article be used to start an article on Irish minor nobility -- or added to an article on that topic, if one exists. (I am not sure if it would belong in Irish peerage, however.) Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply - Thank you for your thoughts. The term "authenticated" goes to the claim made, not the citations  provided in support of the article.  As such, the individual is not "notable".  Please note that the individual has been named the "honorary" chief of the clan in question, which means that as a de facto matter, he is not a clannal chief, much less "noble".  In order for the title of hereditary chief to be bestowed, one must "authenticate" one's claims of lineage before a title can be properly "recognized" and "bestowed", and as reflected in the article, this has not been accomplished.  It should further be pointed out that this has been the subject of scandal within Ireland itself over the past few years, as properly stated by a former poster.  Many of the aristocratic titles of the native Irish nobility are also difficult to authenticate as a matter of course as a result of the Flight of the Earls to Europe in the early 1600's.  If you would like to learn more about the subject of establishing clannal chief title, I have provided the following link.

Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2008 (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.