Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fathadh mac Aonghus (2nd nomination)

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 delete. ✗plicit 13:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fathadh mac Aonghus

[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)

Userfied in 2009 after the first AfD, and then moved back to mainspace without real improvements. Based on one mention in a 1843 source[1] basically, which very shortly mentions a Fathadh, son of Aengus. Lacks verifiability and notability. Fram (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. There are insufficient references here to support the text, not to mind establish or support notability. The claims to notability (in the text) are that the subject was a "nobleman" who begat other generations of nobles. Not only are noblemen not automatically notable, but (even if his offspring were notable) that wouldn't make him notable. As notability is not inherited. The claims to notability (in the references and notes and as highlighted in the first AfD) equally non-existent. To the extent that the references, such as they are, only and barely mention the subject in passing. While standards were undoubtedly different in the 11th century, and the fact that you were mentioned by name ANYWHERE was perhaps akin to being Elvis or Oprah, that isn't the standard we apply. If there are insufficient sources to establish or state much more than "this person probably existed", then there shouldn't be an article. Or they can be covered elsewhere. Guliolopez (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASIC; it's a fair point^^^ that, with possibly a few exceptions, anyone who cannot be proven to have existed is a dead cert for the WP:V fail. SN54129 16:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I also oppose redirecting, notwithstanding ATD. Since the names are spelt differently, and so little is verifiable, we would be doing the reader an active disservice if we link them, as we would be implying knowledge we do not have. SN54129 15:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Even were he considered notable by the dubious argument that anyone this old whose name we know must be considered notable, this would be a case for WP:NOPAGE, as everything known about him can be put in a single sentence, and already is at Ó Fathaigh. Agricolae (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing supporting notability.Gusfriend (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to Ó Fathaigh, where he seems to be named, though the name is splelt differently. This is a person of whom we apparently know nothing but that his name appears in a genealogy. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 12 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.