Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Reading through the myriad of opinions here it is pretty clear that there is no consensus to delete at this time and no clear consensus to keep the article in it's current form either. Suggest continuing discussion on the article talk page.--Isotope23 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diarmuid O'Neill

[edit]
Diarmuid O'Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable IRA terrorist. Seems to be written to make a POV attack on the British Police Astrotrain 13:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. O'Neill became notable only in death, because of the dispute over whether the police acted correctly in firing at him; a major campaign was organised by his friends to try to get official acknowledgment that the police acted wrongly. The case has been taken up by Amnesty International. Sam Blacketer 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think terrorists are fairly notable in any case and this one is a particular case. Could definitely do with a cleanup and probably a more thorough de-poving. MLA 13:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- the way things are going, Wikipeida is turning into some sort of IRA memorial site. Although some terrorists are notable, most of them are not- this man didn't even seem to have committed an attrocity that would have made him notable. Astrotrain 13:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentThat comment actually disgusted me and really give me an incite into your vantage point with regards this type of topic. Do you think the only way a republicans can attain notability is by committing an "atrocity"?? This guy was pulled out of his bed and killed, so who is it that commits the atrocities. My advice would be to try and avoid POV and stick to fact in these types of issue. I have had to learn that lesson the hard way. regards--Vintagekits 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I have sympathy for Astrotrain's position here and I can see the logic in that Astrotrain does not feel that this person was notable as a terrorist and as wikipedia is not a memorial, merely dying does not constitute notability. My position is that the death itself is notable, and I have a low threshold for the notability of terrorists. Though the language might not be sufficiently neutral, I don't think it is right to assume other than good faith. MLA 11:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think this could be alright if rewritten in NPOV. Seems to be notable; he is the subject of multiple independent reliable sources. Trebor 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - references show broad news coverage. Definitely notable; one doesn't have to commit a "major atrocity" to be included on Wikipedia. Walton monarchist89 18:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - noticeable individual with several news articles about him --Barrytalk 19:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above.--Vintagekits 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment sorta maybe leaning towards keep, but really, it needs to say something more than x was an IRA volunteer killed by the British Police. I would also STRONGLY suggest we use the term "IRA member" rather than either of the terms terrorist or volunteer as both of them seem to be POV to me. Jcuk 22:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.GiollaUidir 12:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I'm beginning to think that User:Astrotrain's POV is so strong as to render pretty much any AfD by him as a bad-faith nomination. Argyriou (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please vote only on the article in question- not the nominator. There is no bad faith on my part- I agree for articles to be included for notable terrorists - and have only nominated articles that clearly cannot go anywhere. Other than being shot, what else has this person done to meet the critera in WP:BIO? Astrotrain 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • When the nominator has a pattern of making nominations justified by his political feelings in the case, it is appropriate to regard further nominations as being against Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and thus, being in bad faith. If you'd show some selectivity about the articles you nominated, or hadn't expressed your opinions in the ways you have, I'd think that your blanket nominations of articles on IRA members was just an excess of deletionist zeal, especially since at least some of your nominations appear to be reasonable. But it's pretty clear that your nominations are based on anti-IRA animus, not on the merits of the case. I get the impression you'd AfD Gerry Adams if you thought it wouldn't get you laughed out of Wikipedia.
  • Delete: seemed to do nothing notable in his lifetime and was not a senior member in the IRA &c. If we allow all terrorists killed to have Wiki. articles why don't we give the an article to all the victims of terrorism?--Couter-revolutionary 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom - Kittybrewster 22:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Soltak | Talk 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Additonally the "delete" votes immediately follow Astrotrain undergoing a campaign in canvassing!!!--Vintagekits 23:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more aptly described as raising awareness.--Couter-revolutionary 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raising awareness by leaving a biased messege to those he knew would vote "delete" is canvassing.--Vintagekits 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When they say delete per nom they are saying that it should be deleted per the nomination that this article seems to be written as a PoV attack on the British police. I agree to a certain extent but think it more important to realise he didn't accomplish anything of note. You say it is important as it raises questions of whether the police should've killed him...Surely all the victims of terrorsim deserve individual articles if this is allowed - there are certainly questions over their deaths! This deserves a few lines in another article, it doesn't need an article for itself.--Couter-revolutionary 10:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And something being written in a PoV manner is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to clean-up. Which means they're arguing delete as not notable, yet no reference has been made to the notability guidelines. Their argument, therefore, is essentially baseless. Trebor 15:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Again the above "delete" vote immediately follow Kittybrewster undergoing a campaign amongest those who primarily edit on British Royal Family related pages. Is something going to be done about about the canvassing from Kittybrewster and Astrotrain - is this going to go unpunished?--Vintagekits 11:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have yet edited an immediate member of the Royal Family. I may be wrong. But in any case I was not asked to vote in any particular manner. Surely every Wikipedia editor has the fundamental right to vote on deletions? David Lauder 11:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why dont we let others judge by looking at you history of contributions--Vintagekits 11:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a dedicated monarchist to me!GiollaUidir 11:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if we look at your histories: [1] and [2], you both look like dedicated republicans, in fact Vintagekits states that he is!--Couter-revolutionary 12:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: users dedicated to ensuring that there are accurate articles about republican subjects. Precisley in situations like this. GiollaUidir 12:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am a republican, I dont see I should hide that, the largest parties in Ireland, north and south of the border are republican parties, its hardly uncommon! However, the issue here is canvassing, we were not canvassed therefore our history is not in question, the question is why did Kittybrewster canvas you and other and therefore we should look at your history. Action should be taken against Kittybrewster and Astrotrain for their canvassing!--Vintagekits 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kittbrewster did not canvass me. I found this page and contributed as he clearly is not notable enough for a Wiki. entry, the article tells us nothing about what he did except that he was shot. Was he an Olympic medalist, author, politician &c. who was shot? If not he is not notable! If this article is allowed it sets a dangerous precedent. Why not articles on each individual victim of the Omagh bombing? You are clearly in possession of a PoV that doesn't allow you to judge this article objectively.--Couter-revolutionary 12:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the same logic then we should delete the Jean Charles de Menezes one. Or indeed ones such as Princess Beatrice of York or Princess Marie Louise. These obscure members of the monarchy contributed nothing to society. JCdM done nothing except get executed rather publicly by the police. Your own POV is getting in the way of assesing this article. GiollaUidir 12:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Members of Royal Houses invariably appear in encyclopaedias because of their status. One of the problems with some of the posters on this page is that they clearly have never read an encyclopaedia. David Lauder 08:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with the comments posted variously above: (1) that Wikipedia is in danger of becoming an IRA memorial site; and, (2) that the subject of this article merits a couple of sentences in an associated article rather than a dedicated page.--Major Bonkers 12:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Again the above "delete" vote immediately follows a messege left by Kittybrewster, still not action taken to stop this abuse! why?--Vintagekits 12:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am quite capable of thinking for myself and you should note that Kittybrewster merely drew my attention to this issue and nothing more. What 'abuse' is this, other than someone disagreeing with you? If you bothered to check Kittybrewster's discussion page you will see that I have previously communicated with him on removing some of the more egregious POV comments on the Bobby Sands article. Why don't you address the points that I make instead of shouting 'conspiracy' and calling for contributors to be 'punished'?--Major Bonkers 12:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really, maybe you need to familiarise yourself with WP:CANVAS--Vintagekits 13:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:What is a troll. I notice that you still haven't yet answered the points that I originally made.--Major Bonkers 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please try and keep this discussion civil, I have attempted to stick to the facts, there is no need for an outburst like that, please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - also the issue at hand here is WP:CANVAS, thank you--Vintagekits 14:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand here is my support for deletion of this article, and the two points that I raised. Your issues are completely separate.--Major Bonkers 15:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the points you raised. Point 1 is a non-issue; nobody really thinks Wikipedia is in danger of becoming an IRA memorial site. It's not even close to being a reason for deletion. Point 2 is also not a reason. It says "delete" because "the article doesn't merit a dedicated page". That basically says "delete" because "it should be deleted". We have policies and guidelines to help, so try arguing from them. Trebor 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1: There seem to be a large number of articles, of doubtful worth, about IRA militants on Wikipedia, and Astrotrain has made a start by nominating some of the more worthless ones for deletion. Kittybrewster and I previously cleaned up the Bobby Sands article, which was so POV at that time as to be simply propaganda. As I say above, I have no problem with a general article about minor IRA personalities but I find it suspicious and disturbing to have a series of individual articles, padded as they are with references to POV sources and a strong bias of republicanism and/ or anglophobia. It seems to me that certain contributors are making it their job to list every IRA personality that they can. Point 2: As Douglas Bader had it, 'Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools'. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines are sufficiently broad so as not to compromise users' common sense and do not, in any case, help either side in this debate. You also misrepresent my argument: I do not say, '"delete" because "it should be deleted" ', I say delete because the subject is comparatively trivial and being used to advance agendas, not knowledge.--Major Bonkers 16:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indent) How is it suspicious and disturbing? And what relevance does certain contributors' actions have to this debate? The policies and guidelines are not completely binding, granted, but they are established through general consensus and can't be ignored on a whim. This decision is clearly not "common sense" as there is plenty of disagreement.
Added to that, you still haven't constructed an argument. "Being used to advance agendas, not knowledge" is not a reason for deletion as far as I can see. I'm not even sure what's meant by it. Saying it's "comparatively trivial" is also meaningless as you're not comparing it to anything; it's like saying it's "too trivial for an article", which is again essentially saying "delete because it should be delete". When I analyse your argument, I'm still not finding anything that holds up. Trebor 17:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the feeling, Trebor, that we are simply not going to agree on this issue and that further discourse on the subject is pointless. However, to answer your questions: (1) I find it 'suspicious and disturbing' that what is being promoted as an objective source of information is actually tendentious; (2) particularly so because this article is one of a series; (3) that if someone wishes to construct an online shrine to IRA militants, that is their perogative, but it is not something for Wikipedia, no matter how artfully disguised. (4) I used the phrase 'comparatively trivial' carefully, because life is sacred and obviously his death caused pain to those who loved him. However, frankly and from an historical perspective, the sole interesting feature of this individual is his accidental shooting by the Police and that could be dealt with on a page dealing with that subject rather than giving this individual a page of his own.--Major Bonkers 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the same feeling, and so will let the discussion run its course from here. Trebor 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If we allow this article then it is against PoV not to have one for every innocent victim of the troubles in Northern Ireland. I don't think there is any need for it but if we allow this for a terrorist who did nothing of note, at all, in his lifetime then why not for terrorist victims?--Couter-revolutionary 15:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Wikipedia's not censored. That's a non-argument. Trebor 15:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Mohamed Atta. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article does not seem to be especially relevent or informative or to add anything Matthewafallen 15:22, 30 -- comment actually placed by User:192.76.26.101
Relevant to what? Add anything to what? Again, these aren't arguments for deletion. Trebor 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I often find myself arguing that WP:ILIKEIT is not an appropriate keep criteria, but here, I find myself arguing that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. I don't think anyone would seriously dispute, for example, that Amadou Diallo is notable and suitable for an article. There is plenty of nontrivial secondary source coverage here, and any NPOV problems should be addressed with the good old WP:SOFIXIT. Seraphimblade 15:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's clearly notable, for his death as much as his life. Arguing that keeping the article glorifies him is attractive, but the same argument applies equally to every evil person of notability, from Hitler and Stalin downward. It's a fallacy. --Dweller 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth did he do in life that was notable? Hitler and Stalin lead nations! This chap did nothing except get shot, or so the article suggests!--Couter-revolutionary 16:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may well be correct, but it doesn't matter if you are or not. Just as we write from sources, not our own personal knowledge, so we choose our subjects based on what there is enough source material to create a decent article on, not whether we personally think the person deserves to be written about. Sometimes, the media does have a bias toward writing about the sensational and bad. If you wish to try and correct that, you can certainly write letters to editors, start a citizen's group, or use any number of other means. But this is not the place to correct anything-either the sources exist, or they don't. In this case, they do. Seraphimblade 16:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not that he was bad! My point is that he is totally unnotable! I would also oppose articles for all the victims of the troubles! Can you imagine every victim of the Omagh bombing, for instance, having an article - they got press coverage too!--Couter-revolutionary 16:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to this article about a non-notable electrician. Try taking that to AfD and watch the "speedy keeps" fly. Someone can be notable for the manner of their death even if their life is utterly without merit. Indeed, some people can become notable as soon as they draw their first breath. --Dweller 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if kept, the article should be rewritten with attention to WP:NPOV. The subject is only notable for the circumstances of his death, and those are very poorly sourced at the moment. —xyzzyn 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment::I am not sure if that is entirely true, it is highly unusual to have a guy that was born and bred in England join the PIRA. I will do some work on filling the article out tonight.--Vintagekits 16:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- is there any reliable evidence he was even in the IRA? The only reliable sources in the article are the Telegraph which just name him as an IRA suspect. I seem to remember an article being blanked recently due to your unsubstantiated claims about murder and terrorism for a living person. Astrotrain 16:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish Republican source cited in the article ([3]) seems to confirm that he was "a volunteer". --Dweller 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider that to be a reliable source. Astrotrain 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Trebor 16:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't be speedily kept; it doesn't match anything in the guideline. Let it run the full course. Trebor 17:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Amnesty Intl. follow the cases of thousands of prisoners, this doesn't make them notable and it doesn't make this chap notable.--Couter-revolutionary 18:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands of people is a pretty select group out of a historic world population of over 10,000,000,000. That's fewer than the number of local politicians listed on Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, why don't you start a category for "people supported by Amnesty International" and write about each of them. This is all an absolute farce, I just wish someone would put a stop to the blatant PoV in creating memorial pages for terrorists, especially when they didn't do anything important except go to Catholic comp. in London that Tony Blair's son went to.--Couter-revolutionary 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable because of the news coverage. The notability guidelines do not specify whether or not the person is allowed to be a terrorist, or what the basis for their news coverage must be. If you think the article is POV pushing than fix it.--Dycedarg ж 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not bothered about it because he is a terrorist! I am bothered about it because he JUST DID NOT DO ANYTHING! Where is the guideline specifying the amount of press coverage making one notable????!!! Lots of people are shot dead. The news will report it. They do not have articles, why does he!--Couter-revolutionary 19:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You ask for the guideline, and I provide. WP:BIO states "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." No mention of whether he had to have done anything to generate said works, only that he must have done so. Explain how he fails to meet that criteria.--Dycedarg ж 19:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact to get more specific:"Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated." is mentioned specifically as a usable criteria for inclusion.--Dycedarg ж 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm afraid assassination is what is known as a "loaded term" and should be avoided on Wikipedia (I'm being very ironic), besides he wasn't assassinated because he wasn't famous, he was a nobody, which is my point.--Couter-revolutionary 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said he was assassinated. He was involved in a newsworthy event, which is something the guidelines specifically state is grounds for notability. Assassination is just the example they used. If the event he was involved in weren't newsworthy, than there wouldn't be as many newspaper articles to link to as there are.--Dycedarg ж 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, perhaps there should be an article on the event, as opposed to a shrine to the person, such as the Omagh bombing.--Couter-revolutionary 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he "didnt do anything" why was he shot? Should we delete articles of Harry Stanley, Jean Charles de Menezes, Abner Louima or Sean Bell?--Vintagekits 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All very left-wing anti-police articles which deserve, possibly, a place in, say, the News of The World, but not in an encylopaedia. David Lauder 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the articles don't deserve a place, or the manner in which they are written? The former surely isn't true, and the latter is not a reason for deletion. Trebor 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more references listed by Amnesty International regarding the shooting of Diarmuid O'Neill that you might be interested in if you want ot know more.
  • (1) This refers to the Canary Wharf bombing of 9 February 1996. The bombing resulted in a number of casualties and two deaths at the scene.
  • (2) Tracey Davanna: “Why Was Diarmuid O’Neill Killed ?” in Fortnight, November 1999, p. 12
  • (3) Patrick Kelly, Brian McHugh and two others were charged with and tried for conspiring to cause explosions and with possessing explosives. It was during this trial that the officers involved in the raid were questioned about the incident in the hotel.
  • (5) The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr Iain Eric West at Guy’s Hospital, London. The quotes are taken from his report which was written on 25 September 1996.
  • (6) Although the latter of these quotations appears in the police`s official transcript of the recording of the incident, the first one caused some controversy during the trial mentioned in footnote 3. According to the police transcript the words said are an order to shut up (“Shut the fuck up!”). Brian McHugh, however, claimed that the words in question were a command to kill (“Shoot the fucker!”).
  • (7) This quote is taken from the report of the PCA, handed over to the CPS on 11 April 1999.
  • (9) After Paul Philippou of the Justice for Diarmuid O’Neill Campaign had met the PCA to discuss the report, he summarized their argument to delay the interview with ‘Kilo’ as follows: ”They [the PCA] said it was standard procedure to talk to all the other officers first and then to question him [Officer ‘Kilo’]. That sounds very reasonable but only if the time period is quite short—not if it is two years.” [Tracey Davanna: “Why Was Diarmuid O’Neill Killed ?” in Fortnight, November 1999, p. 13]
  • (10) Tracey Davanna: “Why Was Diarmuid O’Neill Killed ?” in Fortnight, November 1999, p. 12
  • (11) “Minister Rejects Inquiry Pleas” in The Irish Democrat, December 1999 / January 2000
  • (12) Amnesty International has already expressed its concerns in earlier publications: Amnesty International, News Service 170/96, 26 September 1996: “United Kingdom: Killing of Diarmuid O’Neill Raises Serious Questions”, AI Index: EUR 45/12/96; and Amnesty International, 30 September 1996: “United Kingdom: Killing of Diarmuid O’Neill”, AI Index: EUR 45/14/96. --Vintagekits 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this article is very good and has many sources so what if the person becomes notable after death it does not matter yuckfoo 20:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There may be lots of sources but the article is rubbish! It doesn't tell us anything other than he was a terrorist who's been shot. He wasn't a senior leader in the terrorists or anything! He was just a nobody, it doesn't matter whether he was good or bad he's just not notable. The list of sources is basically longer than the article which seems absurd to me. This needs mentioned as an aside somewhere else, not in an article of its own!--Couter-revolutionary 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your arguments are for merging not for deletion anyways so it is irrelevent yuckfoo 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you suggest this information is kept? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Generally, as soon as you appear in one newspaper the others all follow suit. Countless nonentities appear in newspapers all the time. By using the arguments put forward her this terrorist gets his page on Wikipedia not because he was notable - he was not - but because he appeared in the newspaper. Its quite pathetic. It is not a question of censorship, just whether or not this complete nobody, who never did anything in life other than join an organisation dedicated to furthing its aims by murdering innocent people and violence, should have an entry in an encyclopedia. I don't believe he should. No credit in any way should be awarded to him. David Lauder 08:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, appearing in multiple newspaper articles confers notability, according to the definition we use; we aren't judging his "importance" or "significance". And the second half is irrelevant - it makes no difference what his organisation does, or about awarding "credit" to him. That's not how we decide these things. Trebor 11:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not. Lt Cmdr Neil Rutherford, DSC & Bar, RN was deleted in spite of appearing in several newspaper articles. - Kittybrewster 11:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As were the Oxford Monarchists, who had appeared in Hansard no less!--Couter-revolutionary 12:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to David Lauder's comments and !vote earlier, that's the most blatant example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT I've seen on Wikipedia. Your moral outrage isn't a criterion for deletion. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was not flagged for deletion. I merely joined int he discussion and gave my reasons for voting for a delete. If your mother, sister, or child got blown to smithereens by these evil people maybe you'd have a bit of "moral outrage". David Lauder 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I read the following on the internet just now:
  • "Hardworking people have become alienated with politics because they don't have the time or inclination to struggle with its complexities. When they do try to put their view across, rational, well argued points are fobbed off with nonsense - spin, platitudes and stonewalling. So they give up, believing the world to have gone mad. Their silence clears the way for a small number of extremists to dominate policy making with their own agendas."
  • Does this sound familiar?! It sure does to me.
  • This comes from a guy who is speaking against the proposed new system of road-pricing in the UK, Nigel Humphries of the Association of British Drivers (ABD). This is NOT an endorsement of his views!!! (although...)
  • It's everywhere, this rubbish! We need a new order of politics that cuts through the bo**ocks. - Kittybrewster 12:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that some sort of justification for carrying more of them? David Lauder 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is becoming very repetitive, becoming very repetitive - who is the terrorist? how many civilians did he kill? - on the other hand he was dragged out of his bed and shot while providing no resistance by "the good guys" - remind me again who the terrorist's are? As pointed out, you may not agree with what he stood for, you may not like what he stood for but that is not the issue at hand here, notability is! We will have no whitewash on wiki no matter how much you canvass--Vintagekits 16:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, this is getting kind of old. The guy's case has been taken up for review by Amnesty International, he's the subject of multiple independent reliable sources, and the question of notability is an easy one. Please don't confuse recognition of notability with the support of a cause. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and we don't change the notability requirement for people whom we merely believe to be evil. —ptk✰fgs 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.--Vintagekits 17:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and I've taken the liberty of striking that editor's !vote because yeah, this is a pretty obvious puppet... I was just looking into this when I saw you already blocked 'em.--Isotope23 19:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He looks like he has edits on pages that I am involved with - however, just incase accusations come flying my way I would just like to say that he is nothing to do with me - I would be happy for a user check or IP check to be undertaken to prove it also. Also it is interesting that he was nailed as being a sock, any proof of that? I kinda like his edits and want him to stick around, lol! Also on the issue of striking his vote, shouldnt the vote of the canvassers be struck out also?--Vintagekits 19:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without any proof of sockpuppetry I see no justification for striking the user's vote. Esp by a user involved in this dispute. I've restored it until such time as someone can prove that the user is a sockpuppet. RE: newness of the account. User could well be a long-term editor of wikipedia but only recently registered. Newness is no reason to dismiss a vote in the absence of sockpuppet evidence etc.GiollaUidir 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. So yes, newness is, in fact, a reason to dismiss a !vote. Now, all that said, the user in question has been indef-blocked for obvious sockpuppetry, so his/her !vote may be disregarded on that basis as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for now. This was recent enough and well covered enough that it just about fits the criteria. My suspicion is that in years to come this article will eventually be deleted as non-notable but at the moment there is enough secondary information to support keeping it.--Jackyd101 04:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. It is highly recommended that if you cannot keep a neutral point of view that you refrain from editing articles related to that bias. - Chardish 08:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sign of being the subject of anything other than routine contemporary press reporting. Not a book or journal cited in the article, and the press reporting ends almost at once as evidenced by the feeble, partisan references cited on the CIB report: nobody cared. Wikipedia-is-not-a-memorial refers. Confession: my !vote was effectively canvassed (by Vintagekits raising this at AN). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:27, 2 February 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diarmuid_O%27Neill&oldid=1137785580"