Deletion of Aghabullogue hurlers

Comment: as the tags for references were applied the day before listing. While online references will be sparse for the time period covered by the articles, contemporaneous references are available offline. We have thousands of articles with {{refimprove}} and {{unreferenced}} tags from two and three '''years''' ago and should go after them first. I would also hesitate to add to Wikipedia's ias|systemic bias with a too-fast deletion here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)

Comment: If they are merged, nothing will be lost. Merger is not a one-way trip, and if someone then finds the sources to allow expansion of the coverage of any individual, then the material on that person can be unmerged to a separate article.  As to your argument that that there is other unreferenced stuff, I rather despair :(  Apart from reminding you of , where is the ias|systemic bias in dealing with unreferenced material as and when we find it? Every time an editor opens an edit page to crate a new article, they are reminded that unreferenced material may be deleted: do you want to change  so that we can amend that say something like "unless referenced within a year or so"? Most unreferenced material which I encounter I simply tag and leave ''if'' there appears to be some likelihood of notability, but it's up to the editor who creates an article to supply references which establish notability, not to others to tidy up a sub-stub ... and in this case there was a series of cloned articles with nothing about the individuals apart from their names. If you want to go and work on the two-year-unreferenced articles and bring them to AFD, that's be great work ... but it's no reason to keep these clones
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:B||WP:V)