Talk:Fiona Plunkett

Deletion

I have removed the proposal for deletion. This article was researched and written by a group of UCD students that I have been working with as part of Wikimedia Community Ireland. They are all brand new editors, and while some of the criticism is valid (orphaned etc), I would object strongly to her being deemed not notable enough. As can be seen by her activities in the 1960s and 1970s, she continued to be a vocal Republican voice in Ireland and was an important member of the group of women that were instrumental in the activities surrounding 1916 onwards. I think a lot of the concerns raised don't warrant deletion, and to foster and encourage these new editors perhaps talking with them about the issues would be more productive for everyone. Smirkybec (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Smirkybec, we don't keep articles just because they were done by students. I did raise concerncs via the Prod. Not one of my concerns were rectified. Article was denied at AFC and the concerns raised there were not rectified. I didn't mention orphaned. I can't see any of her activities in the 1960s and 1970 as they are behind a paywall. Also, just speaking at a rally does not constituent nobility. You can stick your head in the sand say nothing is wrong, but unless the concerns are fixed, this article will be deleted. Bgwhite (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking for special treatment because students wrote it, I mentioned it as it goes some way to explaining why they have made some errors in writing their first article. There is no need to take that kind of tone and I am by no means "sticking my head in the sand". Women's histories are consistently side lined and under represented on Wikipedia, and for Irish women's history in particular Fiona Plunkett is an important figure. I have seen many articles where a number of the citations are behind a paywall, whilst not ideal sometimes it is necessary. I was addressing issues with the article in general anyway. I don't understand while there is such a drive to delete articles with potential with such speed, by acting in this way we are squeezing out potentially invaluable new editors, a little patience would go a long way. Smirkybec (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that from the volume of material in the article and the sources cited (assuming the two match up; I haven't managed to take more than a cursory look yet as it's getting late), the subject is more than notable enough for an article. And considering that any moron who gets paid over the odds to kick a ball up and down a field is considered automatically and unquestionably notable yes, yes, I know, WP:OTHERCRAP, and how dare I suggst that somebody shouldn't have an article jsut because they have to use all three of their brain cells to kick a ball!, it's nice to read an article about a more traditional encyclopaedia topic, especially in an area that's under-represented. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

HJ, you forgot all the "singers" and Jpop/Kpop groups. I really hate them. Kicking a ball does take talent, but I wouldn't know as I can't walk.

Smirkybec, I and AfC editors raised concerns. It was denied at AfC for a reason. You deny there are any problems and then say my tone is what is wrong. Sorry, but refusing to take criticism, saying nothing is wrong and I'm evil is NOT the way to go. Once an article is up, it can be criticised at any time. New articles DO get scrutinized. The is what the AfC process is for... to bring an article upto snuff. You bypassed AfC, thus the article can be up for deletion at any time.

1. You don't give dates for the newspaper articles.
2. You say "indirectly affected the Easter 1916 Rising" in the lede, but never really say anything about it in the article. Being part of a group that was one of many organizations is not indirectly affecting anything. My grandfather was in WWII, but that doesn't me he indirectly affected the war. You have to say how/why Plunkett was involved before saying she affected the Easter 1916 Rising.
3. First two sections do nothing for nobility, but are necessary to tell about her. The Geni ref is unreliable and should be removed.
4. The first three paragraphs of "political views" just say she was part of an organisation, just like thousands of other women at the time. It doesn't say what she did or anything else about her. The refs in these paragraphs, at best, only briefly mention her.
5. Last three paragraphs...

1. I can't see ref #14. #15 only mentions she was charged.
2. Refs #16 and #18... I'm not sure, because I don't know the dates of the articles, but the two I found are editorials, not newspaper articles, thus they can't be used.
3. Ref #17, you don't give any information about the ref, so I can't find it. But you mention it is a letter to the editor, thus can't be used.
4. Ref #19 never mentions Plunkett

So, except for the couple of refs I can't find, not one reliable ref goes into any detail about Plunkett. She did have a colourful life, but all we know is she was part of some organisations, she was charged for crimes, she was one of many who talked at a rally and she wrote letters to the editor. That describes everything my great-grandmother did during the suffrage movement, but she isn't notable. The criteria for nobility, WP:GNG, states one of the criteria is significant coverage... "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.. So far, all we have is trivial mentions. Nothing from the refs I can see goes into any significant coverage. Bgwhite (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Raising concerns is one thing, and I have no issue with that, it's claiming that I am being wilfully ignorant about notability is another, but moving on.

1. As I mentioned, I did not draft this article, and given the authors are new to Wikipedia, there are going to be some issues around the quality of the citations - this can be worked with as the skeletal data is there. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
2. Again, this was the original author's phrasing and can be changed, it is not the best characterisation of her involvement. She was involved in organisation of supplies and guarding them during the Rising and in the days subsequent. She is a named part in many of the accounts of the period, so your comparison is spurious, the fact that she appears consistently and repeatedly in memoirs and other works related to the period indicate her heavy involvement and influence on the events recounted.
3. Again, this is nothing that can't be changed, rather than just deleting the content can be reworked - I don't know why this is grounds for out-and-out deletion.
4. Again, she appears consistently, she didn't just hold these beliefs she acted on them: relief efforts during the lock out, participation in 1916, leading member of Cuman na mBan, noted dissenter of the political leanings of the Irish Republic in the 1960s and 1970s. The fact that her action warranted censoring speaks to her impact.
5. Last three paragraphs...

1. A source is a source, it is backing up the fact.
2. Fair enough, if that is the stance on editorials.
3. Again, I will bow to your superior knowledge on that if that is the case.
4. The book is searchable on Google Books, but for some reasons isn't appearing correctly and without page numbers, she is in fact mentioned in the account there, I think she is erroneously referred to as J. Plunkett's daughter as he has no children. Smirkybec (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Credit

We don't give ourselves credit in the main article space guys, so moving this from article namespace:

==Project Team==
~Conor McGovern~
~George Hannaford~
~Kelan O'Connell~
~Hideki Kennedy~

Guliolopez (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)