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 no consensus‎. The final relist generated no improvement in consensus. Basically, I see two solid Delete !votes based on lack of notability, one based on poor content, one unbolded Keep not based on P&G, and one I interpret as a conditional Keep, hinging on a renamed title. Since both the title and the content can be fixed editorially, I do not consider either to be a valid deletion argument, leaving us with no consensus either way. I do note there seems to be a consensus to rename the article to Ó Comáin, which I'll carry out despite it being outside the scope of an AfD. Editors are encouraged to trim down the content so as to remove all WP:OR. Hopefully this can be brought to the point where renomination is unnecessary. Owen× ☎ 16:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The term "chiefdom of Commane" is not used anywhere it seems[1][2], none of the "notable figures" bear the name Commane. Basically, "Commane" is one of many names originating with the "Ó Comáin" root, but isn't a notable one and not the name of a "chiefdom" apparently either. Simply moving the page to a different title wouldn't solve these WP:OR or WP:V issues, e.g. the first source in the lead, "Sometimes incorrectly 'translated' to Hurley camán a hurly."[3] doesn't seem supported by that source either. Fram (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Royalty and nobility, and Ireland. Fram (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks utterly unreliable as it is not backed up by the given sources. The Banner talk 10:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not looking at the correct sources, writing a reply to this now Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on the article. I would like to address the points raised:

Lots of words to say very little, it seems. No idea why this is at Commane and not at e.g. "Ó Comáin", unless it is because you have some COI with the Commane family you added to Newhall House and Estate or something similar. Nothing you state above contradicts that there is no reliable source about the "Chiefdom of Commane", or that none of the notable persons you listed are called "Commane" (you listed some rather random persons with the name, no one disputes that the name exists). Fram (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, I’m honestly just trying my best to address each of your points thoughtfully. To clarify, my "COI" is that I live in Clare and my surname is Hurley, which often gets incorrectly linked to Commane, a widely recognised surname here. The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin," aligning with the context of an English-language encyclopedia. For example, Wikipedia uses "O'Brien" instead of "Ó Briain," consistent with its naming conventions for Irish surnames. While "Ó Comáin" would be more appropriate for the Irish-language version of Wikipedia, it doesn’t mean the history of the name or its variants is unnotable simply because "Ó Comáin" lacks extensive individual articles. I’d really appreciate it if you could take another look at Section 1 of my response, where I’ve outlined the historical and archaeological basis for the "Chiefdom of Commane" and its connection to Clare. That said, I’m open to collaboration and willing to move the article to "Ó Comáin" if there’s a consensus that it’s more appropriate. My main goal here is to preserve the effort I’ve put into the article, as the the sources are valid, and I’d prefer not to see it deleted. If there are specific concerns you feel remain unresolved, I’m happy to discuss them further and make adjustments. I’m just trying to contribute something meaningful here. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you insist on using "Chiefdom of Commane" when not a single reliable source uses this, I have no interest in even looking at what else you state. Your article seems like a coatrack of everything loosely related to the name, from a long section on a clan or chiefdom to a list of non-notable people named Commane or Comman and a list of notable people not named Commane, and so on. "The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin," aligning with the context of an English-language encyclopedia." Not according to "The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names of Ireland", which doesn't even give Commane a separate entry (or even a "see at" reference), but mentions it once under the entry for Cummins[4], which you are well aware off, since you copied the whole section "Early bearers and historical records" literally from that source. Do I really need to restart the proposal at WP:ANI, considering that the previous problems all seem to persist? @Asilvering: has there been any attempt to get the mentoring or feedback which was supposed to happen after that previous discussion? Fram (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a broad range of sources are on the page, like this:[5] Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't state that Commane is the standard anglicization either, it seems... Fram (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No communication since, no. -- asilvering (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, as far as I’m aware, it is not a copyright violation to include a list of names from a source, they help prove root of name. Reporting me (again) unjustly to administrators (whose prior review did not result in any action against me) without fully engaging with my responses is not constructive and only creates unnecessary tension. I have taken the time to address all of your concerns and provide balanced explanations, supported by credible sources. However, your unwillingness to read my response and now your presentation of a false narrative is both unfair and unproductive. I remain committed to improving this article collaboratively. However, given your history of targeting me, I believe it would be more constructive for a third party or another editor to engage with me on this matter instead of yourself. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram I’d also like to kindly ask you to carefully re-read Section 2 of my response, where I state that I am open to renaming "chiefdom of Commane" to "chiefdom of Tulach Commáin." Thank you for your consideration. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram as you've stated you're not reading my responses, Tulach Commáin means in english "The Mound of Commane". I am happy to renaming it to the Gaelic. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. You are the only one ever to use "The Mound of Commane", in two Wikipedia articles. Reliable sources almost invariably use the Irish name (which is a recent invention anyway), not some translation, and one source uses "The Burial Mound of Commán". Fram (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to buy the 500 page book (available in PDF) and review the source material for yourself:[6] Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This [7] is the much more recent book by that scholar, not his PhD thesis, and that book uses "The Burial Mound of Commán" (once) or the Irish name, not "Commane". The term Commane does not appear in that book. Fram (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the quote you just linked to it says Tulach Comma (The [burial] Mound of Comman) notice "burial" is in brackets meaning optional and it's referred to else where without burial. The whole point of my wikipedia article is variations of the name. The same author uses Comáin, Commáin, Comain, interchangeable variants throughout the book and gives an explanation for why which I tried to do on the wikipedia page, it's the same name, I appreciate that's a strange concept from an English perspective.

I have both this book and the PhD thesis which is way more thorough and academic but yes similar.

In the PhD version he calls Tulach Commáin - the latest book version it's Tulach Comman -- same author and name Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin" - really? I'm living in Ireland all of my life, and I have never once heard the name, until today. "Cummins" is the usual translation to English of all of the various forms of the surname listed in the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's predominantly in Muster / Clare (in the area of the original chiefdom) Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you make it sound as original research. The Banner talk 15:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As it stands I wonder if this should perhaps be Draftified. Until some of the sourcing and formatting and WP:OR concerns are addressed. (Certainly, for an article in the mainspace, I was surprised to see a number of relatively small formatting, tagging and tweaking edits that I had made completely reverted. Almost certainly in error. But implying that, perhaps, the title is not yet "fully formed" - to the extent that it's "ready" for the main article namespace.) Guliolopez (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Guliolopez I think we may have been editing the article at the same time, my apologies if I inadvertently caused any issues, it certainly wasn't intentional. Since then, it looks like you've made some recent edits, and I hope everything is now in order. On that note, I originally added several notes and quotes in the citations similar to the ones you've included on the page, to help it make more sense but they were removed by another editor. You can see this in the page's edit history. Regarding your comment in the history section, these topics are being discussed on the Talk page, your input would be most welcome there. Thank you! Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly huge amounts of original research, incorrect or poorly-formatted citations, inclusion of barely relevant detail, and much else wrong (if you want examples of all, see the "Variants and distribution" section)—a really very subpar article. Obviously, a hatchet-job is needed even if Kellycrak88 is able to justify notability, but as I cannot see any evidence of significant coverage of the article subject, delete. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I strongly disagree with the assertion that the article contains original research or invalid sources.

  The content draws from reliable publications, especially the works of Dr Gibson, a professor of anthropology with a PhD in Irish chiefdoms. His 500-page dissertation (Tulach Commáin: A View of an Irish Chiefdom) and later book (From Chiefdom to State in Early Ireland) are well-respected and often cited by other scholars.

  Of course, the article could use some improvements, particularly in formatting and trimming less relevant details. I’m more than happy to collaborate further on this, as I’ve already worked with several editors to refine it.

  Given the robust scholarly sources and the historical importance of the subject, I believe the article meets notability standards. I’m open to further feedback and willing to keep working to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines.

  (Tulach Commáin translates to "The Mound of Commán," anglicised to Commane, with Tulach meaning Hill, Mount or Fort.)

  Lastly, I think this is important: the old English spoken and written 500 or 1,000 years ago would be nearly incomprehensible to us today. The same applies to Irish. This chiefdom was in the 8th–9th century, and variations in the spelling of Irish names, later anglicised phonetically by English officials in Ireland, reflect linguistic changes over time. From an English perspective, this might seem like an odd concept, but it’s an integral part of understanding Irish historical and cultural context. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • But the article isn't about the chiefdom or about the fort (which already has an article, Cahercommaun), it's about the surname. Fram (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cahercommaun also known as Caher Commane (National library of Ireland and Clare Library.) is an archaeological site and according to Gibson it's the capital of the Chiefdom of Tulach Commáin which is a separate site nearby for burial and inauguration.

    One of the spellings Gibson used was Commán (anglicised to Commane) referring to the 8th-century locally revered chief that was buried there, descendants were "son of" which in modern day Standard Irish form is: Ó Comáin.

    @Fram if your main objection is the anglicised surname Commane, and it's variants (which is obviously connected with the site and in the citations) - what if we change the title to the Irish Gaelic Ó Comáin, at least it can be agreed all the variants share the same root.

    Even though the letter Ó no one will type into a keyboard as this is an English and not Gaelic encyclopedia.

    There are mamy examples of historical Irish names using the anglicised version on Wikipedia.

    Complex example: CLANCY instead of the Iirsh Mac Fhlannchaidh/Mac Fhlannchadha

    Simply example: O'BRIEN instead of the Irish Ó Briain Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • The objection is that you are treating different subjects together, and have taken a rarely used name as the main topic and have twisted every remotely related thing to be about Commane. Even your reply here, I was not commenting on Cahercommaun vs. Cahercommane at all, but you somehow need to add that one is also known by the other name as if that has anything to do with my post. And even then you can't correctly represent the source material or the facts; it is not "Caher Commane" but "Cahercommane". So no, while changing the title would be somewhat better, my preference remains to simply delete this POV coatrack article, and to let others create articles about the chiefdom and if needed disambiguation ones for the name or names (separately), just like we have at Coman already. But an article trying to discuss at the same time a chiefdom, a fort, and naming origins (with OR about the Irish vs Scottish and so on) is a bad idea, and to have all of it shoehorned into a "Commane is the main form" sauce on top makes it a lot worse still. Fram (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      I didn’t put a space between Caher Commane and "Cahercommane” to highlight for the benefit of the reader on this thread. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course it contains original research Kellycrak88. If you disagree, please provide relevant quotations for the "Variants and distribution" section from the books you currently have cited for that section. If you could also cease from using AI-generation in your responses, that would be useful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was curious, so I pasted my response into an AI detector, and it said “0% of text is likely AI-generated.”

  I could go through the citations, but I’m trying to keep my responses short. So in the spirit of collaboration, we can delete that section if it’s causing anguish. However, deleting the entire article feels like overkill.

  Yesterday, I picked up a new book from Clare Library with additional information about the Commane Chiefdom, which could warrant its own article. I’m open to creating a separate page dedicated entirely to the chiefdom. But this article is about on the surname, its variants, and origin, which is the chiefdom and this page only has a small section on the chiefdom, there’s a 500 page dissertation and other sources on the subject. Also there are many other irish name pages that have an origin story or history in this style, I’ll get some links to show if required.

  Let me know if you’d like further changes. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this needs input by people who have not commented before. Please avoid WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion to death by replying to everything at length.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment move and trim. Seems to me that the page would be better at Ó Comáin and possibly could be trimmed of the OR. I'm not sure how this could be done, to be clear. JMWt (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt, AFDs can't be closed with a "Move" outcome as that is an editing decision. If you want that result, you need to argue to Keep this article and then a page title change can be discussed on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well that seems counter-intuative. I can't !vote for keep as the page currently presents. I could possibly if the name was different. I'll unbold. JMWt (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts: my reasoning is this: the OR in the body of the page appears to extend to the title. And the title itself is an assertion that doesn't seem to be supported by the sources. There are sources that seem to refer to the alternative title which seems barely mentioned in the text. For me, it's a mess. JMWt (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminding participants that this debate is about the notability of the subject. Both the content and the title can be changed editorially, if the article is kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OwenX the article has already been relisted twice, many editors have contributed and on the article Talk page there is consensus for collective edits. One of the editors deleted a whole section commenting "per article author's refusal to provide quotes at AfD" I was not refusing, I was already scolded here for my comprehensive replies, so to keep my response short I agreed to the removing that section for reaching consensus. One of the main sources for variations is in Griffith's not to mention the other citations. If you compare it's certainly not original research. @OwenX I believe we've gone through the motions and it should now be published. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kellycrak88, it is not me you need to convince, but the other participants in this debate. My job here is limited to reading consensus among participants, as viewed through the filter of policy and guidelines. Owen× ☎ 21:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as mentioned I believe we are at consensus, all participants have extensively edited the article and gone through the sources - article seems to be in limbo at the moment with constant relisting Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the other participants here to be particularly shy. If they had changed their mind and now agree with you, I'm sure they would have said so here. This type of misrepresentation will not help your case here. Nothing is "in limbo". The AfD will be closed when consensus is clear or when it had run its course. Your bludgeoning will not expedite the process, and might get you blocked from participating here. This is your second and final warning. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 22 January 2025 (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.