Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:46, 29 January 2007

Diarmuid O'Neill

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]
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 --Barry^talk 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]
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]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *'''Keep''' per above.[[User:GiollaUidir|GiollaUidir]] 12:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 *'''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. '''[[User:Argyriou|Argyriou]]''' <small>[[User talk:Argyriou|(talk)]]</small> 21:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
+* '''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?--[[User:Couter-revolutionary|Couter-revolutionary]] 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)