Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Reilly (Irish historian)


 * 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. John254 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Reilly (Irish historian)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable, doesn't meet WP:BIO by a long way. The book appears to be widely available and reviewed, so maybe an article on the book and a redirect from the author is appropriate. Cricketgirl 14:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

•Keep – If the books he wrote deserves and entry in Wikipedia as stated by you; “..an article on the book”. How than does the author of the book not also deserve an entry in Wikipedia? Shoessss | Chat  14:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: WP:BIO states "The person must have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The next section, Specific examples of sources, demands that the person be the subject of a "credible independent biography", "widespread coverage over time in the media", "demonstrable wide name recognition" or "in depth, independent coverage in multiple publications showing a widely recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in the person's specific field".


 * The only one of these that this historian gets close to, is the last one, through reviews of the book and interviews relating to the release of the book. Google searches turn up lots of mentions of his book, which his name mentioned as the author, but that's it. He doesn't meet any of the criteria on WP:BIO for creative professionals. As a result, I still think he doesn't meet the notability guideline.


 * I’m sorry and your point is? I questioned your logic in stating that the book deservers an article but the author does not.  If the book is notable,, than I would assume that the “Author” is notable by using the book as a refernce.  Shoessss |  Chat  17:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:BK would indicate that the book is notable as it has been reviewed by a number of newspapers and has been mentioned in contexts such as this. Cricketgirl 15:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I make the point, as I often do, that in general most books do not require separate articles from their authors unless there is value in extended commentary. As simple common sense dictates, a book can never have another author, but a living author can certainly write another book. It is simpler to expand the author's article when that happens. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, at least one of his Cromwell books seems to have generated considerable controversy for its revisionism. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. But the title of the article should be changed to Tom Reilly (Irish author) or Tom Reilly (Irish commentator). He apparently has a widely read column in his part of the world, viz: "Ever since the inaugural Life of Reilly column appeared in the Drogheda Independent's Drogheda Weekend Extra (now the Drogheda Weekend) on 31 January 2003, life has changed utterly in 'Drawda'. A lifetime resident, local historian and author Tom Reilly has created a veritable institution with his weekly satirical columns. Reilly insists that his sideways view of the world proves that everybody in the town is completely screwed up, not just him. . . . This selection of over 100 previously published columns has been carefully chosen for inclusion in this book to mark Life of Reilly's three-year anniversary. It includes all the classics, some of which you may have missed. They'll make you laugh, cry, and if you're a borough councillor they'll make you very very mad." (From []. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 22:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions.   --  Double Blue  (Talk) 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep He is notable because one of his books about Oliver Cromwell was controversial and was discussed in newspapers. I suggest moving the article to Tom Reilly (author) - including his nationality in the article name is not necessary because there is only one other person in Wikipedia with a similar name. Bláthnaid 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Shoes. Twenty Years 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It looks to me as if the author is notable as a historian, rather than as a newspaper columinist. The article is a stub ans should be tagged as such.  Cromwell has had a very bad press in Ireland, so that his revisionist study is no doubt important.  If it has to be renamed Tom  Reilly (historian).   Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe he is trained as a historian (or an historian, if you prefer). A review of his book at Amazon.com says his description of his local McDonald's is better writing than his grasp of history. I believe he is a local-history buff, not a historian. I myself am writing a history book about my neighborhood and know a lot about it, but I am not a historian only a writer with a special interest. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Marginal & uncertain Keep. I'd say that he fails WP:BIO, and that if he's notable at all, it's because the book is notable (or notorious), and its notoriety is within VERY limited circles so I'm very uncertain even about the KEEP..  As for the title of the page, calling him a "historian" is apparently rather like calling me a "rocket scientist".  Page should be Tom Reilly (newspaper columnist and author) or just Tom Reilly....if it's to be kept at all.    Hughsheehy (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2007 (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.