Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilla na Neamh Ó h-Uiginn


 * 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. no merge topic Secret account 23:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Gilla na Neamh Ó h-Uiginn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: non-notable. Nothing aside from this paragraph ("a poet the readiest, most pure-worded and most general in the arts of poetry that was in Ireland, died a fortnight before Easter, after gaining victory from world and from demon") exists to describe him. Checked any available links, including, , ,. Quis separabit? 03:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Same rationale as for related AFD FOR Domnall mac Brian Ó hÚigínn (see ). Sometimes antiquity alone does not confer notability. Quis separabit?  03:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 4.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 03:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete.  Very ancient antiquity, that is, being pre-modern would count for notability. Medieval Ireland had a whole class of bards and brehons. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I incline to the view that having an obituary in the Annals of Ulster that says you were the greatest poet in Ireland at the time of your death is pretty considerable notability in itself. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The sole link found via Google Search or in the article footnotes says: Annala Uladh: Annals of Ulster otherwise Annala Senait, Annals of Senat. Author: [unknown]. So where you are getting your info from ("the greatest poet in Ireland at the time of your death") I don't know but please provide some context and a working reflink. Thanks. Quis separabit?  23:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You already provided the link yourself. The Annals of Ulster is a major medieval source (even though we don't know who wrote it). It says he was "the readiest, most pure-worded and most general in the arts of poetry that was in Ireland". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well to do due diligence I rechecked the link, a link I had seen and referenced above in my deletion rationale (http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100001B/text149.html) and found for the year 1346 A.D. the same thing again: "Gilla-na-naem Ua hUiginn; a poet the readiest, most pure-worded and most general in the arts of poetry that was in Ireland, died a fortnight before Easter, after gaining victory from world and from demon." The problem is that, even if this was true (and it is wholly subjective), it is woefully insufficient. It provides no evidence of any works or anything otherwise verifiable about the individual in question, aside from a one-line thumbnail sketch that would not pass muster for a contemporary bio, and can't here. There are substantive bios for people from the 12th century on Wikipedia, but this family of bards isn't among them. Quis separabit?  00:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't know anything about him beyond the Annals of Ulster saying how great he was, but that in itself is amply sufficient. We don't have to know everything about a person to record that a major source says they were the bee's knees. And to argue that we shouldn't keep what little we know about him because we know more about others seems perverse. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "even if this was true"? It's an academic edition of a major source, that you posted yourself. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge I'm pretty sure that this is going to be a wp:PERMASTUB at best. There's no in depth coverage to be found in reliable sources.  Just a couple of lines barring more archaeology.  So the article would be best served as a redirect to something (I don't know that section of Wikipedia well enough to suggest what) and failing that deleted. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The essay linked to rather assumes that short articles are a bad thing (that articles have to have "room to grow"). In fact, there is a notable tendency for articles to get baggy with detail when detail is available, and it's something of a relief to come across one that just gives the key facts in a brief span. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * delete (or merge if a target can be found). No in depth coverage, and none ever likely to appear. The content still exists in the Annals of Ulster, but a single unverified sentence from that or any similar source does not form a good basis for an article.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 04:35, 4 December 2014 (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.