Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Earls of Dublin


 * 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Irish Earls of Dublin
This page provides no sources, and previously a anomous IP address (probably the person who created this page) vandalised the Earl of Dublin page with this 'information' about the Irish Earls. S/he provides no sources for this information, and is clearly biased if you read some comments s/he makes about the real Earls of Dublin Berks105 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Note that this user User:Lorddublin, and the many differant IP addresses he is using, not only keeps attacking other people's remarks on this page, he has also removed the 'This page is up for deletion' templete on the Irish Earls of Dublin page itself. --Berks105 11:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC) --


 * Weak Delete for WP:V. I tried googling some of the names with dates and titles listed, but couldn't come up with anything. The only 'source' cited here is "the biography by James Kane." If someone can cite some sources, perhaps this article could be merged with Peerage of Ireland or Earl of Dublin -- assuming that's appropriate. Unfortunately, both of those articles also lack sources. I don't fully understand the subject matter, but I can't detect any WP:NPOV bias in this article. Only the lack of verifiable sources bothers me. Scorpiondollprincess 19:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Article reads more like opinion or WP:OR, and is unverified. Agent 86 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. This page will cite proper sources from the end of the week and is formed under a properly registered address.  It is formally verifiable and easy to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.217.82 (talk • contribs)
 * Weak delete per nom. Also, even with citations, the article does a poor job of asserting its own notability.  I think it may be, but at the moment, I can't tell why from the article.  With a some extensive copyediting and proofreading, sources cited, and a better introduction that establishes why it's noteworthy, I could see keeping it, though.  - Tapir Terrific 22:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC) 01:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I can't - after some effort - verify the info given and have huge doubts that such a title exists to any credible standard of proof. Feels like smoke and mirrors to support a pretender to a title. Lots of the info is misleading. If the title were created by the English/British crown then the it could and would have to be proved which it hasn't. If it is non English/British then the Act of Union provision wouldn't apply. The Irish state doesn't recognise titles included former Irish titles and no Irish court will rule on succession disputes so claiming the 1957 International Recognition and Enforcement Convention is fluff. Alci12 17:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually on one point you are wrong. The Irish state does recognise titles. The Genealogical Office has been involved in doing so for decades, and peers have sat in the Seanad under their full title and have contested seats in the Dáil. And issues of succession have gone before Irish courts in the past. Not too long ago the Oireachtas amended a law to regulate issues concerning the property inheritance of Lord Altimont. The Irish state has never abolished titles. It just does not issue them, an important difference. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 03:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, though I can see where you're going but this is not the place - see pm Alci12 10:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

MAJOR POINT References and sources have now been added and quoted from Public Records Office papers, I don't see any of this level of referEncing on any other article in this encyclopeadia!Lorddublin 01:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This page is formed from authorities in published works on public display in the Craigavon Museum and the Dublin Cathedral, it is full of citations namely the Royal Warrant, the Regimental Archives and several others; it does deserve to stand and is authored under a formal membership. The entries below are misleading, the 'real'' earls of Dublin; this person clearly has no understanding of the subject at all as s/he states; it is therefore not proper for them to enter an opinion which is unfounded on proper authority. This page should stand alone as it has nothing to do with the British creations and the Irish creations are entirely lawful and recognised.  To say this page contains no sources is to not read it, every line contains a source which is immediately verifiable and in compliance with the editing rules.

This article is noteworthy as the author James Kane cites "This book charts the long and distinguished history of the Blackers of Carrick Blacker, which the reader will quickly realise was one of the most remarkable and influential families to settle in the province of Ulster."

I intend adding page some fascinating extracts about he civil wars, the Irish famine and the general history of the province through the eyes of one of Ireland’s most noteworthy contemporary writers. I have several pictures, maps and commentaries to add and this page will become a source of material like no other page.

This page should stay.

lorddublin (a member not anonymous)Lorddublin 01:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No vandalism occurred, it was the insertion of valid one line remarks such as "This of course does not concern the Irish creations." and suchlike. It was only when offensive 'don’t vandalise my precious page' remarks flowed from that author that things got silly. Leave this work alone, it is self declaring and of inestimable value to the true historian searching for information about this family. Did you know for instance that Kate Blacker was the first person to take aerial shots of Everest? Well I have them to include here; did you know that Latham Blacker was the first person to survey Everest and the mountain is only known as Everest as his assistant finished the work after his murder? No well if you remove this page you will never know about these and many other fascinating things.
 * Delete either it's WP:OR and WP:SOAP, or it's a hoax. Either way, unencyclopedic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I think it's a hoax. I searched Google for over an hour and found some of the persons and sources mentioned in the article, but nowhere a link to an Irish Earldom of Dublin . However I found another interesting things over Alan Blacker, the man who should be the 37th earl and . Phoe 12:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) THIS PAGE WAS EDITED WITH MY CONSENT AND IS ENTIRELY ACCURATE TRUE AND THE AUTHOR IS A PERSONAL FRIEND SO DONT QUOTE WHAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND YOU NUTTER.
 * Delete. Bogus. A farrago of nonsense. - Nunh-huh 18:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO COMMENT AS YOU HAVE CITED NO AUTHORITIES.

IF THIS PAGE IS NOT RIGHT FOR WIKIPEADIA DELETE IT, I AM QUITE CONTENT WITH THE ENTRIES IN WHO'S WHO, ITS JUST THAT YOU WILL LOSE OUT ON SEVERAL FASCINATING ( A WORD USED BY JAMES kANE) PAGES OF INSIGHT INTO DOCUMENTS IN THE PUBLIC AREAN. IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR PEOPLE TO COMMENT THAT THE PAGE IS UNWORTHY WHEN I HAVE CITED SVERAL PUBLIC SOURCES. THE OTHER PAGES WRITTEN ABOUT ME ARE WRITTEN BY ME FOR OTHER AUTHORS, LORD BRADFORD ASKED FOR AN ARTICLE SO I PROVIDED ONE, HE AND I FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT AGAINST FALSE TITLE HOLDERS AND SELLERS THE WORLD OVER. SO ITS NO SKIN OFF MYU NOSE I SIMPLY WANTED TO PROVIDE THIS ENCYCLOPEADI WITH LOTS OF USEFUL IFNORMATION IF THE ILLITERAY ABOVE DONT LIKE THIS I'LL CLOSE THE PAGE MYSELF. Lorddublin 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

IF THIS SILLYNESS CONTINUES I WILL REMOVE THIS PAGE MYSELF AND CLOSE THE LINKS ALTGETHER AND RELY ON MY OWN SITE SO IT REALLY DOESNT BOTHER ME AT ALL, THE LOSS WILL BE YOURS, YOU HAVE SEVENTY TWO HOURS. IT IS INTERESTING THAT THE ONLY PERSON TO WRITE IN FAVOPUR OF THE SITE DOES SO WITH AUTHORITY AND CITATIONS WHEREAS THE NUTTERS WHO WRITE IN DERISION CITE NO AUTHRITIES BUT PERHAPS THIS IS HOW YOU LIKE IT IN THIS UNAUTENTICATED ENCYCLOPEDIA, IT IS NOT CREDITWORTHY IF IT DOESNT HAVE CITATIONS AND MY PAGE HAS THEM BY THE BUCKETLOAD. Lorddublin 16:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It would help if you used one of the systems available in Wikipedia to link specific facts to specific references. As things stand, it's not clear which of your heap of references is being used to back up which claim. See Footnotes for more detail on how they are commonly used. At the moment, I have to say that the article reads as though it is trying to refute some claims elsewhere. User:Alci12's and User:Phoe's efforts to find some corroboration and context have turned up only mentions of legal issues. That isn't reassuring. Nor is your name-calling. It is possible to edit for a long time without reading all the Wikipedia polities, but you can't get too far without knowing about WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Telsa (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: as per User:Angusmclellan. Telsa (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2006 (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.