Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Neill's of Puerto Rico / O'Neill's of the Fews


 * 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 to delete; default to "Keep". - Philippe 03:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

O'Neill's of Puerto Rico / O'Neill's of the Fews
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. This is genealogy and unencyclopedic and, per WP:NOT, does not belong here. Eusebeus (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep They seem notable enough historically. Sourcing is of course needed. DGG (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the article as it stands but, individually, many of the members of the family would easily be notable for articles in their own right.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 08:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral (and sorry for the late return to this dicussion) The article could be split, with  articles about the notable members of the family, but would still need to referenced and sourced to reliable sources. Certainly Don Tulio O'Neill O'Keffe, the Governor of   Spanish West Florida and Don Arturo O'Neill de Tyrone,  would merit  articles in their own right, on notabilty, and for lack of a better word, importance. However, I have concerns about the notability of some of the later generations.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 23:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Split Delete  - into articles on the notable people therein.  They can be linked together where appropriate, and have ancestry and relationships described.  Some content is speculation, and other content could go into a history section of St Croix. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that "delete" would preclude reusing/merging the content elsewhere. – Zedla (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Aye, there's the rub, all right. While many of the earlier notable members of the family are covered by existing articles, there is the potential for several articles here: for example, Don Arturo O'Neill de Tyrone, the Governor of the Yucatan was also the commander of the Spanish forces in the unsuccessful attempt to annex Belize at the Battle of St. George's Caye, the anniversary of which is now commemorated as the National Day of Belize. While of course the article isn't referenced, there's no doubt that family members were important participants in Spanish, Mexican, Central American and Carribean history and if the author of this article were to create stubs on the notable members, there would be something to work from.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 01:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator's claim is specious, citing a policy that's intended to keep people from putting their family trees up as articles. This is a discussion of a noteworthy clan that is ready for improvement. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Even if some of the members of this family are notable, the article would still need a complete rewrite. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  15:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  15:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Split - i think there is salvageable material, but i don't think an article covering the entire clan makes sense before having the most notable people established. Better to focus on the key people, list their genealogy if useful on those articles, and perhaps draw connections between them ultimately if that shared content is sufficient to warrant a common article. That's my two cents at least. But the article as it stands today appears questionable to me. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, still. No valid reason for deletion ever asserted (nomination was specious), and the argument that a clan can't be notable doesn't hold up.  Why the obsession with deleting this when there's so much nonfactual content you could address? The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 23:49, 2 April 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.