Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tullyhogue Fort

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Jtkiefer  T - 16:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Tullyhogue Fort
Unverifiable by google search, probable hoax. No google references. Even if it is real, it doesn't need it's own article. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC) Note: Changed my vote to Keep, see below.


 * Delete unverifiable, probably nn. — Phil Welch 00:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite . 8 out of the first 10 hits on a google search for Tullyhogue Fort return info that verifies that this is a real place and that it was a (possible) crowning point of the King's of Ulster (the link to the Wikipedia article is one of the two that don't). It is certainly notable enough for an article, although the article we've currently got is not the article we need. I will do my best to get at least a decent stub out of this in the next couple of days. Thryduulf 00:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep rewrite heavily and expand... specifically on the historical aspect HoratioVitero 03:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Thryduulf. Thanks; I don't know how I missed those 10 google results.  Sorry about that.  Can we delist this now? JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've completely rewritten the article to be about this history of the site, but I've included a mention of the current concerns as well, but removed the unverifiable pagan stuff. Thryduulf 15:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Verifiability is an absolute minimum requirement, not a keep criteria. I just can't see how this is notable. The Kings of Ulster were probably locally important, but that some of them (there were at least a hundred of them) were crowned in this fort isn't terribly impressive. If someone is willing to show how this is unique or representative of culture, politics or architecture in north Ireland, I'm willing to change my vote. / Peter Isotalo 01:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See History of Ireland, Hugh O'Neill, Flight of the Earls for some more background. The O'Neill family were one of the three most powerful in Ulster, Tullyhogue Fort was probably their most important site, making this one of the most important sites in the history of what is now Northern Ireland. Thryduulf 12:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The site itself is probably interesting, but it doesn't set it apart from any number of old castle or fort sites that are scattered all over the world. If it's only notable because of the association with the O'Neills, why can't it be merged? / Peter Isotalo 16:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that, I considder all the old castles and forts to be notable enough for their own articles. Its primary notablity is through the O'Neill's, but it is a notable feature in the local area that there are several groups trying to push as more of a tourist destination (most of the current tourist literature I spotted when researching the article basically gave it a sentence or two). Thryduulf 16:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I respect your argumentation, but I don't share the opinion about old forts being notable in of themselves. That goes for tourist attractions too, unfortunately. / Peter Isotalo 17:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Thryduulf 18:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable place in northern Ireland. Thanks to Thyrduulf for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 07:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Is a good article now. NSR (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A decent article on a notable topic.  Thanks Thyrduulf.--Pharos 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notabale enough for me. Paul August &#9742; 05:30, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.