Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Northern Ireland

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Northern 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:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Northern 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 Northern 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 UK.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Northern Ireland related AfDs

Scan for Northern Ireland related Prods
Scan for Northern Ireland related TfDs


Northern Ireland

edit

Sticky Torrens

edit
Sticky Torrens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is unsourced and I cannot find sources online. The only mention I found was from Hot Rod & Stock Car Racing (2008), which is a passing mention saying he was "Irish Open Champion". I'm not a motorsport fan, do idk if this is a different name for a notable competition, but I could not find an "Irish Open" when searching. Otherwise is unmentioned online. Roast (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Could participants look at improvements made to the article since its nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Kirkpatrick

edit
Laurence Kirkpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

The subject of the article is a former Professor of Church History in Union Theological College, the small seminary for the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, based in Belfast, northern Ireland.

He does not meet the notability criteria for an academic WP:NACADEMIC:

  1. there is no evidence that his research has had a significant impact in the discipline of Church History, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  2. He has not received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
  3. He has not been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association.
  4. There is no evidence that his academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
  5. He has not held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research or a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement.
  6. He briefly held the post of Principal at Union Theological College, but this is a small seminary, not a major academic institution.
  7. There is no evidence that he has had a substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity.
  8. He has not been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in his subject area.

Reliable sources him only in the context of a single event. WP:BLP1E When he was sacked from his position as Professor of Church History in 2018 there was widespread press coverage of his sacking, subsequent employment tribunal and eventual settlement, but other than that he is a low-profile individual. The event is covered in the history of the college in its article, [2] but is not significant enough to merit an article of its own.

The article was first created in 2023, well after the professor had been sacked and was no longer academically active. [3] It was created by a confirmed sockpuppet who spent a lot of time making edits related to the sacking of the professor.

In summary, the subject was not regarded as notable during his academic career and the article was only created in response to a single event in the news. He is not a notable subject. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Northern Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure - I suspect the OP is correct that the notability standards have not been met per NACADEMIC, but it seems to me it is possible that he has a certain notability as a religious leader and commentator. Also possible he doesn't, but that doesn't seem to be explored in the nom. JMWt (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @JMWt, those are helpful categories to raise.
    I've had a look to see whether he pops up as a commentator or not. In Northern Ireland the main opportunities for that would be the two national daily newspapers, the Belfast Telegraph and the Newsletter; two religious programmes on BBC Radio Ulster, Sunday Sequence and Thought for the Day; and the political blog Slugger O'Toole which sometimes touches on church and religion.
    • I can't find any articles by him in the Belfast Telegraph. [4]
    • I can't find any articles by him in the Newsletter. [5]
    • He was a panelist on Sunday Sequence just twice, in March 2023 [6] and in March 2025 [7]. [8] That isn't a noteworthy number.
    • He was a contributor to Thought for the Day three times in April 2025. [9] That isn't a noteworthy number.
    • He doesn't seem to have written for Slugger O'Toole and only comes up once in a Google search. [10]
    As far as being a leader, I'm not aware of him leading any movements. He's been invited to speak at some public events, but I'm not aware of any of them being influential or notable and it's the sort of thing plenty of people get invited to do who aren't noteworthy enough to appear on Wikipedia.
    As far as I'm aware the thing he's probably best known for in Irish Presbyterian circles is writing a large coffee table style illustrated history of the Presbyterian Church. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that enough for WP:NAUTHOR? Elemimele (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be of interest to note here a curious disparity between the way that Ardenssedvirens has nominated this article for deletion, for which the notability of the subject has never hitherto been questioned as far as I can discern, versus the article on Martyn C. Cowan, for which the notability of the subject seems to have been questioned from the outset. This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, whereas the article on Martyn C. Cowan is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. I am not suggesting that either article should be deleted but I would be interested in hearing why Ardenssedvirens is so interested in removing this article and yet had become so intensely engaged in a discussion regarding the mere addition of tags to the article on Martyn C. Cowan. Notably, the latter was also recently edited by a long-established user called Jdcooper, self-described as mainly focusing on the worst articles on Wikipedia. Nonavian (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Nonavian and welcome to the discussion. There's helpful advice on how to contribute here: WP:DISCUSSAFD that will help you to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. If you want to discuss me personally this probably isn't the place to do it. If you want to discuss another article can I suggest doing on on the Talk page for the article or starting an AFD yourself for that article. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't answered my questions regarding consistency of criteria for deletion of articles, which is entirely on topic. I am now curious to know why the mere mention of Martyn C. Cowan in this context is something you should take so personally. Nonavian (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this relevant to the active discussion? TheBritinator (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Elemimele, that’s helpful. I hadn’t considered that angle. It looks like there are four possible criteria to be a notable author. Criterion 3 looks like the potentially applicable one here:
    ‘The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);’
    So I guess the question is whether Lawrence’s illustrated history of Presbyterianism is regarded as significant or well known, and been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. As far as I’m aware there aren’t any books, films or TV series about it!
    • I did a Google search for ‘review “Laurence Kirkpatrick” “Presbyterians in Ireland” an illustrated history’. Apart from reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, I only found one review, in ‘Seanchas Ardmhacha: Journal of the Armagh Diocesan Historical Society’ [11].
    • A search on JSTOR for the book showed just this one review.
    • A further search on JSTOR for anything with Laurence Kirkpatrick turned up two articles: the aforementioned review and a review by Kirkpatrick of another book.
    • I also checked the Presbyterian Historical Society. There didn’t appear to be any reviews. Kirkpatrick contributed two articles to their periodical — one in 2008 and another in 2015. But his own work doesn’t seem to have been reviewed.
    Returning to the criterion above, the book doesn’t appear to meet the requirement that the ‘work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews’ and therefore doesn’t seem to meet the criteria to be a notable author. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NAUTHOR is always worth checking for academics, especially those in non-science disciplines, but I concur that this doesn't look like an NAUTHOR pass. Typically NAUTHOR requires multiple notable books (otherwise we can just have a book article and cover the author as "background"), and with only one review it doesn't look like even his one book passes WP:NBOOK. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - edits by a sock puppet can be cured with edits by uninvolved users, but lack of significant coverage is fatal. I'm not opposed to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being sacked for publicly disagreeing with his church's hard line on homosexuality (and the ensuing media and legal fallout) has given him a general notability that he might not have specifically as an academic or an author. Focusing on those rather than on the general notability seems a little disingenuous. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn’t being disingenuous. I specifically mentioned that, said it was the one thing he’d be known for, and linked to WP:BLP1E to make it easier for other people to consider the criteria themselves.
    Calling someone disingenuous doesn’t seem very civil and idoesn’t contribute constructively. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for any offence, but feel I should point out that I haven't called anybody anything: I have communicated the impression made on me by actions, quite independently of persons or their qualities. You did indeed refer to BLP1E, but I'm not convinced this meets the spirit of that rule. This is a public figure whose main claim to fame (or notoriety) arose due to remarks he made while being interviewed speaking as an expert in his field on the BBC and has generated media coverage over a seven-year period, some (e.g.) exclusively reporting on his own subsequent thoughts and actions. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said ‘Focusing on those rather than on the general notability seems a little disingenuous.’ I don’t know how you can say that and then claim you didn’t call me anything. That seems disingenuous.
Most of the media coverage was in 2018/19 when he was fired and took the church to ab employment tribunal. There has been a bit of coverage since then, but it’s mostly been to say that the tribunal is expected to meet soon and then later than there had been a settlement.
The event is already covered by the Union Theological College article. The Kirkpatrick article doesn’t really add much, if anything. I’m not sure it adds any value having it as a separate article rather than delete and redirect. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we focus on Kirkpatrick please and less on editors' perceived motives?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be just about enough coverage over an extended period of time to justify the article e.g. 1 2 3. Cortador (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like WP:BLP1E, and neither NACADEMIC nor NAUTHOR applies. I don't think the links Cortador points to constitute coverage over an extended period of time; rather, it looks to me that the event (his firing) occurred over an extended period of time. There doesn't appear to be any retrospective coverage after the affair concluded which would give the event some broader significance. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

edit

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Northern_Ireland&oldid=1305411850"