Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilmoon

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. Materialscientist (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kilmoon

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

A strange mix of a Protestant, Roman Catholic and Civil parish The Banner talk 11:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No legitimate reason provided for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know nonsense is a legitimate reason for deletion. The Banner talk 14:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Seems to me there no Reason for deletion meets WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps each of the three is notable on its own. This mix is just nonsense and creates a non-existing entity. The Banner talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Seems the only reason(such as it is) the nominator can give for deletion is that this parish mixes religious faiths. Seems to be a bad faith nomination. Mabalu (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is just nonsense in the present form. The Banner talk 14:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Mabalu (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears WP:NOTABLE and it's well-sourced. I see no reason to delete. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Three subjects in one article... The Banner talk 15:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the three subjects go together (as this one does), then they should have their own article together. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, they are not even identical. The Banner talk 23:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The article subject is clear: the civil parish of Kilmoon. Its a proper sbject for an article: the fact that the article is a bit odf a mess is not grounds for deletion.TheLongTone (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination is ridiculous. Eric Corbett 19:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: bad faith and pointy nomination. Big trouting to the nominator who appears to be engaged in some form of campaign against Blofeld. - SchroCat (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, SchroCat. I am not busy with a campaign aginst dr Blofeld. And I am not grave dancing. I have just nominated an article that is too bad to keep as it is a mix of three different parishes. Your protection-campaign for Blofeld is heart warming, but it also means that you are protecting his sloppy work around civil parishes. The Banner talk 00:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't get it. The article is about a clearly-defined, geographic area. So some of its history is religious, a common situation and an important part of the area's history. Article has sources to back facts, trivial as they may be. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 04:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is comprehensive and outline's the geographic area's relevance in both civil and religious contexts. -- Caponer (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient reliable sources provided to meet general notability of (small) geographic area. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Bad faith nomination. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Civil parishes are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2014 (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.