Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coill Ua bhFiachrach


 * 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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Coill Ua bhFiachrach

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: as non-notable place; fails NGEO. Quis separabit? 02:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete- fails WP:V--Rusf10 (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  03:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  03:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually it meets the requirements of both WP:V and WP:NGEO, it just takes some effort and knowledge to find the information. In the book "Genealogies, Tribes & Customs of Hy-Fiachrach: Commonly Called O'Dowda's Country, By John O'Donovan" on page 2, the place is mentioned. Also on page 4, there is about 4 paragraphs of information which says the name is "still well known", which seems to agree with whats stated in the article. link to book (link to book may not work, in which case try Google books). However, it also clearly says the name is anglicised as Killovyeragh, so the title here is incorrect. The policy simply says that all populated places and official designations are notable, even if they no longer exists, this seems quite clear to me, as this was an officially designated subdivision of Ireland, it is notable despite having been abolished since. Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE


 * Here is another copy at archive.org referencing Killovyeragh that you might use for a citation and with no references or citations to support the article it is less likely to be kept. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I added that as a citation, also I found the ordnance survey letters clearly used by the original author and added those those as a citation also. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep according to what I wrote above, and the other available information which convinces me the place did exist. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This could really use some comments. I added sources, I say it meets WP:GEOLAND. Any input would be good since it's been relisted twice. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE
 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND and comments above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC).
 * Delete - just because a geographic unit was defined, does not make it notable. Nothing indicates that this is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:GEOLAND since notability is not temporary. If it was once notable, it's always notable. Smartyllama (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2018 (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.