Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmait ua Tigernáin


 * 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. It is a John Carter page, I was testing the validity of this type of page per the WP:ANI (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Diarmait ua Tigernáin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:V, no refs in the article, google showing wp mirrors. Szzuk (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article was copied from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article, which contains a bibliography: "Martyrology of Donegal (Dublin, 1864); O'HANLON, Lives ot the Irish Saints (Dublin 1875), IV, 476; I, 152; STUART, History of Armagh, ed. COLEMAN (Dublin, 1900); Acta SS., April, III; COLGAN, Acta SS. Hiberniae (LOUVAIN, 1645); BIGGER, Inis clothrarann, its History and Antiquities (Dublin, 1900); STOKES AND STRACHAN, Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus (Cambridge, 1903)." I don't have access to those books, but I think both the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia combined with its own references would be sufficient for WP:V. (Doing a Google search doesn't really work to determine notability for mediaeval history; a lot of more obscure persons and events in mediaeval history are arguably notable yet won't be found in a Google search, only by consulting specialised reference works which aren't freely available online, or even aren't online at all.) SJK (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Diocesan bishops of major denominations are notable. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a reliable source, so the claims that it is unsourced and unverifiable are untrue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 31 October 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.