Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tadgh Quill


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Tadgh Quill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability. The awards and successes are all at a low level and very local. The music videos have not enjoyed significant success and the show horses are not in any sense notable. Almost (?) qualifies for speedy deletion. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 19:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk  19:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Probably self-authored article. Fails WP:GNG, Owning horses does not make you notable. Spleodrach (talk)
 * Delete - Not notable, attempts to cooperate with creator were met with hostility and a distaste for established practices and norms. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Importance and notability are subjective indicators of value, defined by a person's perspective and/or perception. 1/ Regarding awards and successes, 'low level' is an ambiguous term when you look at it on a relative scale. As for 'local', what could this mean? Hamlet, Village, Town, City, County, State, Landmass, continent, planet, solar system?

2/How significant is significant? And significant in comparison to what?

3/There are plenty of perception based arguments based on horse showing. This may be important to those with an interest in equine sport. It could be argued by fans of that interest that is more important than what many media outlets regard as 'mainstream' sports (soccer, baseball, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I am also not the person whom is the subject of the article. Ye were looking for sources and I searched the Internet far and wide for them. I don't put my nose in your articles, Spleodrach. Why can't you just mind your own business before jumping to conclusions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be WP:CIVIL. Spleodrach (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see much civility in you branding my work as 'vanity' and 'self authored' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Stall the ball here now, Spleodrach, I've just seen your revision of your first comment, where you removed "vanity" and added 'probably' before 'self authored'. Also adding 'please be civil'. This is at best, manipulative gas lighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've struck that comment so. Spleodrach (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Replaced in front by 'owning horses does not make you notable'. I don't remember ever saying that subject had owned horses, but that they had shown horses and competed them in dressage competitions, based on newspapers and other sources found online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How fascinating! Still doesn't make the subject notable though. Spleodrach (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It may be fascinating to someone with an interest in horses. You're just being obstinately passive-aggressive under the guise of civility. Having a think, owning a horse may make one notable through word of mouth e.g 'oh look, the john smiths, they own a horse, sure they're mad into them'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have found no online sources that suggest subject owns a horse. Why are you picking at that bone in particular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been great fun chatting with you! I've made my !vote clear above, you should also !vote to keep rather than just talking to me. Maybe your arguments on horses will sway other editors, let's hear what they have to say. Toodle pipski! Spleodrach (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that this article Fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have an interest in making pages about politicians and other people connected to books, film and TV in someway or another. I stumbled across subject whilst searching for sources related to Timothy Quill. This is not a self authored article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to put emphasis on the 'guideline' in General Notability Guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mine is a very firm delete recommendation. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:YTN or WP:ENT or related guidelines. Even the claimed references/links in the article itself do not refer to the subject in any substantive way. And several do not mention the subject at all. To the extent that their use to support the text seems disingenuous at best. I can find no other substantive coverage of the subject. Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you believe makes a 'substantive' reference? All sources mentioned name of subject on their descriptions on Google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have created stubs with far less info provided and their notability has not even been questioned. I will not accept the deletion of this article until other stubs have been deleted, as i wish to see consistency within the deletion process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

How come a page about Brooklyn Beckham can exist with the same opposition placed against this article?

I see a lack of consistency within this process.

Had it not been for this article, I would never had heard of Brooklyn Beckham, only for discovering him looking for pages created about teenagers. He may be notable to a particular segment of the population, but not to me. Subjectivity is at play here. I will not accept the deletion of this page until Brooklyn Beckham's page is deleted. How on earth could subject showing horses not be notable, when Beckham having the ability to speak multiple languages is? My perception deems there to be little consistency in this process. I'm sure it would be possible that offline articles refer to subject in more detail, as the horse community seems more quiet about online media publication, while i have seen plenty of national horse related publications for sale in newsagents before. I seem almost tempted to find subject on social media and ask for offline references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , he has received more coverage and thus passes WP:GNG. We have policies and guidelines to help us determine what is notable. WP:GNG is the most basic and generally applicable. Please have a read of it and explain why you believe this is notable. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Just because someone has received more coverage does not necessarily make someone notable, there is room for subjectivity within Wikipedia's objective guidelines. Also, guidelines are not even the same as rules, there's a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , regardless of what we call them, guidelines are a form of rule. If the person does not pass WP:GNG or a different notability guideline, you must be able to make a very convincing argument that it is notable. Also, in order to remove some subjectivity, Wikipedia does not assess notability outside of reliable, independent coverage, unless covered by a specific notability guideline. If someone is notable, they will eventually receive sufficient coverage (excluding known long-standing biases). StudiesWorld (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines are not rules.

To me, it appears that this article provides more information and references than several pages related to teenagers existing on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I can no longer take this process seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel an arrogant atmosphere here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Given the fact that subject was pictured in a reference that was later described as not being in citation given, this is wrong and I therefore further question the deletion process, this was a careless move by other Wikipedia editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The level of arrogance I've seen here on Wikipedia is astonishing, from messages I've received on my talk page, now to this, I can't believe it.

This is a joke of a process.

My quote from most recent edit: (citations given for band were based on previous criticism regarding band, not person whom is subject. Found refs related to Pat Shortt on Google images, added horse ref on google images, pictured as YH champion at Equifestival, after researching it on the internet, seems worthy to add to me. Subject is pictured in citation given regarding Kathleen Lynch, therefore adding 'not in citation given' is wrong. Subject's name appeared in description below every link on Google Search.)

my quote from most recent edit: (found photo references regarding una dream ticket on google images - this must be it - old description must have been removed from webpage despite remaining cached.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless ye purge the '2002 births' section, this article contains more info than many articles on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Strong Delete, not notable in any shape or form. VViking Talk Edits 14:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, might just be WP:TOOSOON. Schazjmd (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

For Christ's sake, are ye not taking in cultural factors and other perception related elements when it comes to WP:GNG ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll bite. What are "cultural factors and other perception related elements" when they are at home? Guliolopez (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is not any doubt in my mind that this article does not meet any guideline, including WP:BIO on top of the ones per Guliolopez. First, his "video-blogging" works receive close to no hits on Google: a music clip he co-produced with a little over 2,000 views, and a short film for which he won second place in the junior category of the Ireland's Young Filmaker of the Year 2015. Second, his Youtube channel also scores slightly over 100 subscribers. No secondary source picks up his subscriber count, yet alone his channel, which fails the WP:YTN essay. There's really not much else online besides trivial mentions. --Pilaz (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2019 (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.