Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portclare
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Portclare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No established notability. No links to this article... User:Timneu22/moutray — Timneu22 · talk 19:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A manor such as this has some of the characteristics of a settlement, particularly if the people who worked on the manor also lived there. What was the population? I am inclined to think that the automatic notability of towns might apply here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but WP:ORPHAN ranks highly with me... if no one wants this article, that's my starting point for questionable notability. — Timneu22 · talk 21:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ORPHAN is not a criteria for deletion. Just because an article hasn't been linked to very often, which is especially true for new articles, doesn't diminish its notability at all. SilverserenC 22:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that's it's not an official reason for deletion, but when you have the same editor posting numerous articles and all are deleted because of the lack of notability, ORPHAN certainly becomes a factor in these articles: they were posted because he wanted them for his mission, not because they are requested or desired by the encyclopedic community. — Timneu22 · talk 22:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ORPHAN is not a criteria for deletion. Just because an article hasn't been linked to very often, which is especially true for new articles, doesn't diminish its notability at all. SilverserenC 22:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but WP:ORPHAN ranks highly with me... if no one wants this article, that's my starting point for questionable notability. — Timneu22 · talk 21:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep regardless of the other articles and their manner of creation, Portclare appears to have been a real settlement/town and as such, should likely not be deleted. See this google search which turns up several sources which discuss it, its boundaries, population, etc. etc. --Jayron32 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per User:Jayron32. NtheP (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - almost all settlements have been kept after deletion discussions, and per my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Being in A topographical dictionary of Ireland is a definite plus. It is also covered in Counties Fermangh & Tyrone, and An historical account of the plantation in Ulster at the commencement of the seventeenth century, 1608-1620, and A statistical account, or parochial survey of Ireland: drawn up from the communications of the clergy, Volume 3, and Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, and many others. Historical notability seems quite assured. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:06, 8 May 2010 (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.