Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tadhg Ó Cuinn


 * 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. Withdrawn by Nominator  JGHowes   talk  01:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Tadhg Ó Cuinn

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An article on an author that is completely absent of reliable sources. The article starts out by saying that "little is known of Ó Cuinn", and that certainly appears to be true as I have been unable to find any kind of in-depth information in reliable sources. Both he and his book are mentioned briefly here and there, but there is no kind of coverage that I can find that would allow this to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn by Nominator - Per comments below. Rorshacma (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Scolaire (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have many articles on medieval rabbis and other figures where little is known about them but their authorship of important works. In this case O’Cuinn is the author of a very important work that has been the subject of sustained scholarly attention and there are plenty of sources discussing it, including 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mccapra (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - The third link is just the actual text of the manuscript itself, as translated by Micheál Ó Conchubhair, rather than coverage of it. I found the first and fourth links during my WP:BEFORE search, but did not think that the website the first one was hosted on is considered a reliable source, and the fourth is one of the ones I was speaking of in my nom, when I said there were some brief sources that mentioned his work.  That third source, however, looks to be a definite good one that I had not seen before.  Since it shows the deletion is not as uncontroversial as I had initially thought, I will withdraw the Nomination.  Though, I am still wondering if it may be better to rename and restructure the article to be about the text, rather than the author, as it seems that most of the coverage, and most of the content of this article, is on the book rather than the writer. Rorshacma (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought. Mccapra (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2020 (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.