Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Ireland. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Ireland|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Ireland. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for Ireland related AfDs

Scan for Ireland related Prods
Scan for Ireland related TfDs

Ireland

Treyd

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

Declined at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace regardless, fails WP:NCORP and is blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Ireland, and Sweden. Theroadislong (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. How is it blatant advertising when I have only included information presented in the different sources? Additionally, all the information provided is cited and written in a neutral language? Cece GFI (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"provides working capital solutions to product-based businesses" followed by a list of routine funding rounds. Theroadislong (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the description of the company's services, which can be verified. So the issue is how it is worded or what exactly?

How are funding rounds advertisement, yet it is describing the company's history? Once again, the information on the company's funding is published by multiple sources.

Multiple Wikipedia pages on companies, mention funding rounds. How does that make it advertising? Cece GFI (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need articles about the company, not just funding rounds. Things that show what the company does, why it's gotten critical notice, new products or services. Not just "company gets money, does stuff". Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; The following is my source analysis (from the article, my WP:BEFORE did not turn up any new/significant sources). Using this revision for source labels.
Sources 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 do not provide any coverage that is both significant and independent except potentially mention of fundraising success. They do not convey notability.
Sources 5 and 6 don’t actually provide significant coverage for Treyd in any form. They do not convey notability.
Sources 2, 4, 9, and 12 all could provide notability but I am not entirely sure (other editors opinions would be greatly valued in regard to these sources). Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 13:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2, ok fine... Rest aren't anything beyond funding announcements. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 2 is fine, the rest are about funding. I can only see articles about funding or new executives, nothing about what the company does or why it operates in the market... Source 2 is fine, but it's not quite enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage that isn't just mention of funding rounds. What is the company actually notable for? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Bennett

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

I couldn't access any of the sources, and it's unlikely this 60s footballer has SIGCOV. RossEvans19 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ireland. RossEvans19 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It seems like the sources do still exist, so it seems unfair to say they don't have SIGCOV without accessing them. – Ike Lek (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Were you able to access the articles on the page? Ike Lek (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly WP:ROUTINE sources. Svartner (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The sources I recently added to the article support content but don't demonstrate significant coverage. Hack (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As there is limited evidence of significant coverage. The sources in the article (the existing match reports and some other stuff that I found in my own WP:BEFORE) can just about support some of the basic facts of the article (that the subject played football with Shamrock Rovers, when an amateur albeit top-tier Irish club, in the late 1950s; And later joined Sligo Rovers). But these statements (and the sources that support them) do not establish notability. As they are ROTM match reports and other directory-style stats sources. Nor can I find any material biographical coverage of the subject. (While I don't have access to the book mentioned as a possible source in the article, The Hoops: A History of Shamrock Rovers (1993), even if this book afforded specific biographical attention to this one footballer over all others [and that doesn't seem likely] even that type of coverage in a single book, alone, wouldn't meet SIGCOV.) Guliolopez (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People's Movement (Ireland)

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

I can only find a couple of passing mentions of this organisation in Irish news sources such as RTÉ or national newspapers. It does not seem to meet notability requirements, per WP:GNG, the significant coverage requirement in particular. It seems like it was an organisation active in the 2000s, but it is questionable/dubious if it is still active/relevant as of 2025. The org's own website only indicates very sporadic events in the 2010s. Only one of the 4 cited sources in the article seems reliable, and the elections Ireland website, which is used to confirm the result of the 2008 Lisbon treaty referendum, not anything about the organisation itself. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A number of mainstream media outlets, including RTÉ ([1] [2] [3]), the Irish Times ([4]), Independent News & Media ([5] [6] [7] [8]), and the Irish Examiner ([9] [10]), seem to deal with the org (and their 2008/2009 campaign activities) as a primary topic. The org also appears in a number of books. Most of which cover the Lisbon Campaign as a whole (rather than the org as a primary topic), but which deal with its activities in at least a small amount of depth (see for example Euroscepticism as a Transnational and Pan-European Phenomenon: The Emergence of a New Sphere of Opposition (FitzGibbon/Leruth/Startin, 2016, pages 118-120). While perhaps not a "slam dunk", can't personally support outright deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage by RS outlets. Definitely needs some TLC but there is a loose foundation here that is relevent for Wikipedia readers. Obviously PM's website doesn't qualify for referencing, but looks that the org is still active as of 2025 [11]--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could use some cleanup, and looks like it was expanded greatly since the nom. Metallurgist (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The campaign group has received coverage since 2008 in outlets such as The Irish Times (front-page press-conference report, 11 Jun 2008), RTÉ News bulletins during both Lisbon referenda, and the Irish Independent (“McKenna claims referendum leaflet is misleading”, 1 Sep 2009), demonstrating significant independent treatment. (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/gregory-says-treaty-will-hand-over-power-to-brussels-1.1217917 ; https://www.independent.ie/news/mckenna-claims-referendum-leaflet-is-misleading/26562977.html) In addition, peer-reviewed scholarship on Irish Euroscepticism (e.g., Tonra 2009, JCER, and Laffan & O’Mahony 2008) analyses the People’s Movement as an actor, easily satisfying WP:GNG/WP:ORG (https://www.jcer.net/index.php/jcer/article/download/249/171/1084).Aeon Sentinel (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blacknorth

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Major lack of significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, Companies, and Ireland. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've seen much worst, but the citations are inconsistent. Not sure if this is worth an attempt at a rescue. I'd like to know if anyone has ideas for ATD. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if their film (Here to Fall) is notable it's possible to redirect there and smerge a short blurb. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. To my mind, and while the subject org may have a claim to some notability (as it appears to have been covered in local and industry news), it is difficult to look past the COI/SPA issues, clear inaccuracies (like conflating Kids Emmys and Childrens BAFTAs with their "non-kids" equivalents), and overtly promotional intent (and apparent WP:REFBOMBing) in the article's initial creation. To the extent that perhaps WP:STARTOVER is the best approach. Guliolopez (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass media in Ireland

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

The article brings together two instances of media crossing the Irish border. It's not clear to me that this merits an article in itself, and the fact that the article hasn't developed much in the past 12 years from the contributors of the page creator indicates to me that this isn't an obvious point of discussion, or how this information is logically available within this encyclopedia. It might well make an interesting topic for a journal article, essay, or blog, but isn't to me what WP is for (thinking of WP:FORUM). Iveagh Gardens (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to propose Draftily as an alternative to deletion. The topic is encyclopedic, even if the current article isn't. Ike Lek (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. toweli (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland/Article_alerts#RfD

Templates

See: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#Template:Hiberno-English

Ireland

Treyd

Danny Bennett

People's Movement (Ireland)

Blacknorth

Mass media in Ireland

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also