Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Coey


 * 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 keep. No consensus to delete this. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert Coey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject does not meet inclusion or notability guidelines. WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The article makes no claim to anything that would be notable. Meets the lowest bar possible of multiple sources, but still fails the WP:SIGCOV portion of WP:GNG: the sources do not discuss the subject in depth. Same for WP:BASIC. A presumption is not a guarantee of notability and WP:BEFORE shows this is a perfectly ordinary person, certainly intelligent and hard working, but ordinary and not notable.  // Timothy ::  talk  20:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)   // Timothy ::  talk  20:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  20:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  20:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Arguably one of the greatest Irish Railway Engineers, responsible for a large proportion of the locomotives that kept the Irish Railways going. Has the nom. actually read (Chacksfield, 2003) or at least even bothered to look it up ?  This is going to be a nom. WP:TROUT.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also like to know how the OP verified that the sources do not provide significant coverage. None of the books seem to be available on Google Books or Internet Archive so it seems improbable that they were able to access them all. I would assume that a book titled The Coey/Cowie Brothers would have significant coverage of him; don't know about the others but I'd be inclined to AGF on a historical subject like this. Wikipedia's definition of notability isn't based on our own subjective opinion of a subject's accomplishments but on whether or not they have received coverage in reliable sources. Spicy (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes I did look into this. He gets three mentions in Chacksfield, not significant coverage. The other sources give him mentions, not significant coverage. The references reflect this clearly. I also looked into him on Railroad enthusiast sites and he gets some mentions there as well, but he doesn't have the coverage you'd expect of "one of the greatest Irish Railway Engineers". The lack of significant coverage in the sources about his work is reflected in the lack of information about his work in the article. I think if he were "one of the greatest Irish Railway Engineers", you should mention that in the article, along with why he is considered so along with the sources. You actually barely mention any details about his work on locomotives (barely meaning you wrote one sentence), which I think (along with my BEFORE) also reflects the lack of information in sources. You wrote 825 characters about his family and education, but only 184 characters about his work on locomotives. There is more than four times more information about his family and education in the article, than there is about the work your notability claim rests on. His work barely gets mentioned. Why? Because the sources lack significant coverage.   // Timothy ::  talk  22:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "You"? I didn't write the article. If you were able to access the sources online, would you mind linking to them here so that AfD participants can assess them? Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was replying to Djm-leighpark. I started the reply before you posted your own. No I'm not going to post links to pirated copyrighted materials. It should be obvious from the references.
 * Reply: Also note Robert Coey/Cowie is not mentioned in JSTOR, Taylor Francis, Open Edition, Sage or Project Muse. Although there is a "Robert Cowie" who is an expert on sea mollusks and another who is an expert on Late Medieval and Tudor archeology. This includes journals and magazines such as Railroad History, The Railway and Locomotive Historical Society Bulletin, Irish Historical Studies, The Irish Review and many more about Irish and Railroad history. Finally, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does not have a listing for him, but it does have one for "Cowie, Robert Isaac (1842–1874), physician and author". If he is notable, how could he have evaded notice? (fyi, you can access these sources from the Wikipedia Library). From this it appears he is probably not "one of the greatest Irish Railway Engineers", but just a good engineer, hard worker and ordinary person.  // Timothy ::  talk  22:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply specifically to . Since you strongly believe the sources provide evidence of notability and you've asked me to look at them, I'm assuming you have looked at them. Can you provide us any information from the sources that would back up the claim of notability that I may have missed? I've provided lots of evidence of my research, lets see some of yours.  // Timothy ::  talk  23:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying... yes, we shouldn't be posting links to pirated stuff. I didn't argue that the sources "provide evidence of notability", which is why I chose to comment instead of voting... just wanted to make sure that sources had been checked as they didn't seem easily accessible through the usual venues and some of the arguments in the nom seemed like they weren't necessarily based on the sources. May look into this more later. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry for the harshness of my reply, it wasn't intended that way, but it came out that way. I didn't have access to an index (not sure if there is one), so a paper copy might reveal more.  // Timothy ::  talk  23:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, I realize my comments may have come off as harsh/ABF too. Spicy (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Per consensus: delete: If Wikipedia is going to allow persons careering around with little purpose but to destroy peoples work then this article needs to be deleted .... as perhaps does wikipedia! Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * With recognition of of a week keep below there is some point in putting effort to pull the article from unbalanced stub towards start class as it might not be a wasted effort. Having done this it is also reasonable to move my !vote to Per consensus. People may care to note the state of the article at the point of the nomination was .  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Unfortuately the description of the book (Chacksfield,2003) easilyfound at is primary and somewhat puffy and not eligible.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The TOC of (Chacksfield,2003) seems to proves its a passing mention also:

Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply to : Since you decided to attack me above ("If Wikipedia is going to allow persons careering around with little purpose but to destroy peoples work" and on your talk page "Unbelievably incompetent nomination in my opinion.", I'll comment. You stated in your first comment to me, "Has the nom. actually read (Chacksfield, 2003) or at least even bothered to look it up?". You also criticized me on your talk page for not reviewing the sources before nominating. I replied yes I did check the sources in the follow up reply. However, from your comments above  you did not actually look up the information. So you created an article based on sources you did not look up. You followed that up by criticizing editors that actually do look up sources and WP:V. This is completely unacceptable. Creating an article without checking and using sources only fills the encyclopedia with WP:OR and junk articles and creates work for editors that actually do WP:V and do take WP:RS and WP:N seriously. You not only wasted my time here but also 's time. All of this gives more than ample reason to question the sources, content, and notability of every article you have created. Hopefully, reviewers looking at your Drafts will give them extra scrutiny. I'll give you a tiny bit of credit for the above comments about your sources, but it's too little too late. Yes, I'm irritated and Yes I have reason to be irritated. Now that I've vented my irritation I am dropping the matter.   // Timothy ::  talk  16:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Note to Closer: Only an admin should close this and also review the above. This should be noted in case Djm-leighpark ever applies for Autopatrol or NPP. Thanks,  // Timothy ::  talk  16:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @ lets be very clear you are the one who wasted everyone's time with this AfD. Are you trying to out me?  Because if I have to defend further I may need to out. You'er still on the attack.?  On your user page open to WP:TROUTing? Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do need to declare I accidently edited the article R. E. L. Maunsell (relatively minor sources but related) as my alternate during this AfD. Coey was effectively Maunsell's Manager and they remained friends until death.  If you need me to be banned from NPP and autopatrol that is probably a matter for AfD.  You will likely now WP:HOUND me for life.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My final reply to re: "You will likely now WP:HOUND me for life." See my comment above: "Now that I've vented my irritation I am dropping the matter." I strongly suggest you drop this matter as well. See Law of holes.   // Timothy ::  talk  16:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought this was done after my comment above, but I just saw "Are you trying to out me?" (the indent from the image (note:image now removed) were off so I missed it) I have no idea where you get this idea, but I understand "I may need to out." as a veiled threat to reveal my personal information and this requires admin attention. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  17:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah ... not the last word. well stop mumbling and file a WP:ANI if thats where you want to go.  I will say this AfD is still running however and points possibly remain to be addressed.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: Per your above request: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I told you I was willing to drop this, but you wouldn't let it go. Reveal my personal info if you wish, its not hard to find me from the info on my userpage, but your implications above are unacceptable. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  19:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Second Note To Closer: Please review the ANI report about this article, particularly this and this. when reviewing the WP:V of the creator's sources. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  09:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Passes WP:BASIC, depending on where we draw the line between "not substantial" and "trivial".  If we discount Chacksfield's book (and I'm not convinced that we should discount it), we have several independent references that give brief details of Coey's career, but little information beyond what's normally given in an obituary.  If this level of information is considered more than trivial, or if Chacksfield's book is admissible, we should keep the article. Tevildo (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Decently sourced and appears to be a notable figure in Irish railway history. No good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.