Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic Diocese of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise

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 Snow keep. Close requested by nom (non-admin closure). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Diocese of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise

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

Looks copyvio from [1] The Banner talk 12:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rather than totally deleting the article, just remove the copyvio info. Scrivener-uki (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Per above. This problem is solved by removing the copied material, not deleting the article. WilliamH (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfDs are for challenging the notability of articles. Roman Catholic dioceses have long been held to be notable. If there's a copyvio then simply remove it, but there's no reason to delete the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. "Copyright violation" by itself is only a valid rationale for deletion if removing the infringing text leaves the article empty and there is no non-infringing version to revert to. In this case, the copyright violation has been removed, and there is plenty of non-infringing article text left over. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Copyvio is not a reason to AfD, just Remove the material in question. Snappy (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REQUESTED SPEEDY CLOSE AS KEEP It was doubting if it was copyvio at all, that is why I have chosen this way. But the case is solved now, so I request speedy closure as keep. The Banner talk 21:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC) But take a look at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Tuam too.. [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.