Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomond deeds


 * 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. Michig (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thomond deeds

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unclear notability; unable to locate significant coverage in references. Zujua (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Absolutely no indication that these "deeds" are noteworthy at all. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdrew !vote: the article now does indicate notability. I am, however not voting "keep" since I am not sure whether this deserves a separate article. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zujua (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The text of this article isn't even one complete sentence, and the sentence fragment doesn't even suggest notability. Nor are any sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Recommendation withdrawn in recognition of the improvements that have been made to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, no notability asserted or claimed. J I P  &#124; Talk 06:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Firstly, I would contend that any surviving historical Irish records are notable following the 1922 fire at the National Archives of Ireland and secondly, the further reading section cites a perfectly valid reference, although I note it should be cited as a reference rather than just further reading. I accept that the article as it stands needs further work. Are we rushing into deleting something for the sake of it? -- Senra (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Did anyone actually read the linked citation Hardiman, James (1826)? Here is a quotation from it: "... but chiefly the policy and care of successive English grantees to destroy all evidence of previous rights and possession of the natives, caused those domestic documents to become so scarce, that the few which escaped the general wreck are, at the present day [1826], esteemed valuable rarities, ...". My emphasis. QED -- Senra (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. What Senra says, and Uncle G, and me. Man, if we could spend some time on article improvement rather than on deletion nomination. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I suspect that the article does not do justice to its subject. If this were about England, a collection of land charters would probably not warrant an article, but the loss of so much Irish history, due to the dislocation casued by the Cromwellian settlement and then the destruction of archives in the 1922 troubles probably justifies the article existing.  Perhaps, Hardman's comment needs to be taken inot the article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Perhaps, Hardman's comment needs to be taken inot the article", -- Senra (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment to address the concerns of Senra and Drmies: I'd like to point out that the reference Senra is referring to was not included at the time of nomination, and so at the time, there was really no indication of how the deeds were notable.1 I could have assumed that if they were, indeed, being preserved in the college, they were probably notable for something (although not necessarily to the scope or standard which would necessitate having their own dedicated article), but no source was provided, nor, as I indicated in the nomination, was I able to locate such sources.  It had remained tagged as being unsourced and of unclear notability for more than five years.  It seemed that no one was exactly rushing to fix it, so I don't think it was too unreasonable to think, after my admittedly brief search, that the article couldn't be fixed.  As it turns out, I don't have Hardiman's 1826 essay in my library, but I truly thank Uncle G for finding it.  In any case, I apologize if I was too hasty in my nomination, but now, at least we have something to work with.  Zujua (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I unreservedly apologise for my facetious comment to all those who voted prior to my first post at this AfD. In fact, I had already recognised my mistake -- Senra (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first article to be bad for five years. This isn't even the first article that was bad for five years before I edited it.   languished as a pitiful stub for five years.  Nun's Well, Cannock Wood was drivel for six years.  Uncle G (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2012 (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.