Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Joseph Sheehan

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 redirect. There is still disagreement on merging any of this, but consensus obviously does not favor keeping it as stand-alone article. Redirecting and leaving merger option open for further discussion on target article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Joseph Sheehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Lacks secondary coverage. Article is one of several apparently created by a family member (sources, such as they are) include a letter that, the cite assures us, the family has. No evidence of notability. Disputed prod based on the idea that subject's notable father might make this something other than a deletion case. SummerPhD (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article is well written and I don't have a huge problem with the sources, but there is nothing here that suggests importance. Notabillity is not inherited, so the notable father is not relevent. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a paragraph or so to the father's article if necessary, and Redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete any information worthy of being transferred to father's article should go there. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge When I removed the prod I added the following edit summary Given his famous father this would be a possible merge not a straight delete, so thanks for misrepresenting my comments SummerPHD. Stand by my comments, lots of good material that would be useful in the father's article so merge and redirect. A simple deletion would be lazy and crass Kernel Saunters (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My apologies, I did not intend to misrepresent your comments. In any case, I'm not sure what material would be merged as virtually nothing in the article is meaningfully sourced. Certainly the family's letter is useless. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore fails WP:GNG. Subject was killed in action in World War I and had a notable father however neither afford notability under the WP:MILMOS/N. Consideration needs to be given to a PROD/AfD for his brother Daniel Joseph Sheehan, who also appears to be non-notable for the same reasons. Anotherclown (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect, cited information can be placed as a paragraph in parent's article as supported above by others. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Editor's Comment: Admittedly there were millions killed in the Great War. This page is part of trilogy of officer brothers who served on the front (with a sister, a V.A.D. nurse), together with their father, a member of parliament . Presentation, structure and layout appear to meet general standards (just improved further with infobox). The individual was additionally a good sportsperson, as are the vast majority of fellow countrymen in the Category:People from County Cork or Category:People from County Kerry, their claim to notability principally based on playing well for a club in early years. Should the page be further questioned, a compromise might be in merging all under one lead person (the "notable" brigadier). Merging all under the father would de-focus his article from his political importance, to enlarging on the Great War, a matter many in Ireland would object to. The Great War has yet to be integrated into Irish history and is a matter of considerable controversy!! Thank you for understanding this very relevant point. Osioni (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Without significant coverage in independent reliable sources, we have nothing to save from this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe issue is not the quality and style of the article (which is good), but the basic notability of the subject. Bearing in mind that notability is not inherited from family members, there is nothing to show that this person is any more important than any other person who fought in the war. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no support for this being a notable individual with significant coverage in reliable sources, and no information worth merging across to the father's article. Perhaps a single sentence would be appropriate, but that is already there (without then names of his children), and we don't need to preserve article history to add Martin's name to the article. gnfnrf (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2011 (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.