Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ó Fathaigh

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. ✗plicit 01:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ó Fathaigh

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be either a hoax or a bunch of very hard to verify WP:OR with a few reliable bits thrown in to make it look believable. For example, the forefather "Fathadh mac Aonghus", is not to be found in Google Books and doesn't seem to appear in reliable sources in Google otherwise[1]. "Cormac Ó Fathaigh" is said to be the first with the surname, but again all traces of such a person are missing[2][3]. The episode with "Uilic de Burgo": equally unverifiable.

The sources used in the article either don't support the article, or are copies of Wikipedia.

Note that the name O Fathaigh obviously exists, and some information about it can be found from reliable sources, e.g. here. But that doesn't excuse the existence of an article which seems 90% made up around these few facts.

If this is indeed largely a hoax or unverifiable, then a number of other articles will need to be looked at as well (e.g. Fathadh mac Aonghus and Tadhg an tSleibhe Ó Fathaigh exist here since 2009, but are completely unverifiable). Fram (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. As long as there are Wikipedia articles with people of this name, this can exist as a namelist, at a minimum, per MOS:DABNAME and WP:APOS. Remove WP:OR.—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Not cleanup, but at some point WP:TNT comes into play. If the vast majority of an article is this dubious, there is little reason to use this as the start of something acceptable instead of simply deleting it, and recreating from scratch if wanted. Fram (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. I see that you boldly removed the suspected OR, reducing it to a name list, but it was reverted. Seem like a content dispute that WP:APO could have been consulted, but this is a quirk of namelists vs regular articles. No worries.—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - No worries from me either, your keep is a valid opinion but I just wanted to explain why I saw it differently this time. Fram (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing in the guidelines stopping the deletion of this as a name list. We've got articles about two people with the name. A dab page will be needed here only if both of them are commonly known under their surname, which I take not to be the case. This leaves it as a surname list, and a surname list of two people is allowed as a navigational aid by WP:APONOTE. However, that is not a guideline, but an essay without community consensus, and there are very good reasons to do the opposite of what it recommends for such very short lists. First, the list is not an improvement on the search engine: the two articles about the people will appear at the very top of the search results [4], which will incidentally also reveal all other relevant content on Wikipedia (like the various articles about related names that mention "Ó Fathaigh", or the other non-notable people with the name mentioned here and there). Second, unlike the search results, the list doesn't automatically stay up to date (and there are no processes that I'm aware of that help here), so if a third article gets created about another person with the name, then the list would immediately become an obstruction rather than an aid to navigation. – Uanfala (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is useful as a namelist if nothing else.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Permalink/976014502 was a sensible little disambiguation page. But the fact that there's quite a lot of stuff here that just is not in the sources cited when adding it, is definitely a problem. Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I tried something similar before this AfD at this version, but no luck. Deleting the page and restoring just the first three revisions may be a solution. Fram (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, valid page, keep and fix - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim. The heart of this article is a valid {{surname}} page. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.