Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Smerwick


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Smerwick

 * – ( View AfD View log )

already an existing article Twobells (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - yes, ther is a section about the Siege of Smerick at Second Desmond Rebellion, but that doesn't mean this article should be automatically deleted. The solution is to summarize the information at Second Desmond Rebellion and to expand the information at Siege of Smerwick. If you do a search on Google Books for "Siege of Smerwick" and "Smerwick massacre" (or somthing similar) you'll find plenty of references that can be used in the article. ~Asarlaí 19:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lose -, I suggest that it is merely an attempted npov duplication of an existing article.Twobells (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ther is no way this is a duplication of the whole Second Desmond Rebellion article. Please read my previous post. ~Asarlaí 22:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs references, but they shouldn't be hard to find. If the nominator thinks that this is a POV fork, they should support that assertion. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 22:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - from a Google Book search the siege seems to have recieved "significant coverage" in WP:RS, and as such likely notable in an of itself per WP:GNG. The Second Desmond Rebellion does include some information on this event, however it would seem to warrant a separate article of its own to allow an expansion of wikipedia's coverage of subject without adding undue weight to the parent article. Anotherclown (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Mentioned in the Second Desmond Rebellion article as it should but the events at Smerwick are highly notable in and of themselves. And there is no way around the fact that they were controversial, at the time and since, so point-of-view issues regarding sources should be mentioned in the article, but they wouldn't be a reason for deletion. FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 21:37, 19 July 2011 (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.