Talk:Máirtín Ó Murchú

Proposed deletion

I just haven't had time to add the other things he published! It's a smallish acadmic field but any Celtic scholar knows his work. Glurenom (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that by standard scholarly measures, he hardly appears to exist. I suspect that is true notability lies as a language revivalist for Irish Gaelic. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I object to the deletion too. The article is currently perhaps somewhat Scotto-centric, which may contribute to the fact he seems less notable than he is but looking at Glurenom's edit record, his/her main topic seems to be Scottish Gaelic academia so that's to be expected in a way. And there's his revivalist work as Stuart mentioned. How about we change the delete tag to an expand tag? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd invite you to add sources supporting his notability. Notability for anything relies on sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No one disputes that sources aren't important but occasionally, they're not as easy to locate. Celtic studies isn't like boy bands where you have a zillion fanzines that you could quote from. So in the absence of highly controversial content, I'd suggest we note what people who are actually familiar with the subject in question have to say and give the article a little time before going CSD happy. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:BURDEN the burden of evidence falls (and remains) on the creator of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

And WP:COMMON requires us not to chuck out common sense... How about a spot of patience too? Akerbeltz (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stuart. Sorry for the intermittent replies, I'm a bit busy at the moment. Now, not intending offense, you clearly don't know the subject but are trying to follow the guidelines to the letter. Given that and the fact that a lot of sources in Celtic studies are in print but not on the web (yup, there are disciplines like that) and that few of them go into panegyric poetry these days, praising scholar X for his noteworthiness, before I go and spend time for something that might satisfy your expections - what exactly are your expectations? I mean, I can open any scholarly book on Gaelic or Irish and chances are, he's being quoted or writing in it. Pulling random books of my shelf, he's cited in Stair na Gaeilge, Scottish Gaelic Speech and Writing: Register and Variation in an Endangered language... and even if he wasn't quoted that much, his description of Perthshire Gaelic (now dead) is the only linguistic description of that dialect in existence - and since it's now dead, there won't be any more. But none of them say "Oh, MÓ Murchú is notable because" - I don't think I've ever seens something like that for a Celtic scholar. What exactly am I looking for that will tick your box? Thanks! (PS you mentioned you didn't get many hits, did you also try "M Ó Murchú" and "Ó Murchu" M? These trpartite names don't always get cited in full. You get about 500 results for those two which may not sound like much but even TF O' Rahilly only gets about 700 on Google Scholar). 77.12.238.58 (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Tend to agree with IP77.12, having started articles on other Irish academics. If they are peer-review published, and are quoted by other academics and are professors then they are notable.Red Hurley (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)