Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Ann Kelly

Carol Ann Kelly

Carol Ann Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

This article fails a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Firstly sourcing. The main source used is the Relatives for justice website. As the name suggests, this is a campaigning website and almost certainly fails WP:RS. Other “references” like indymedia can similarly be discounted as failing that policy.

Secondly, the main problem with the article is that the subject fails the general notability guideline as she hasn’t been covered in depth in reliable sources and what coverage there is appears to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. It reports that she was killed and goes no further than that. When all the padding is stripped away (she liked Abba, she had brothers and sisters, there was violence in NI) we’re left with the simple fact that she was one of over 3,000 people who died in the Northern Ireland troubles. Tragic as her death was, the sad fact is that every year, there are probably hundreds of people killed by state forces around the world. In most cases unless there is some overriding claim, the individuals themselves are not notable else we’d have hundreds of thousands of such articles. Put bluntly, a civilian being killed by state forces is not in itself notable.

Judging by the redlinks in the article, there may be an intent to create similar articles so it would be best to clear this up now as other articles, like this one, would also appear to be against WP:NOTMEMORIAL.

The creator of the article has argued that there are lots of sources and that there was a Congressional hearing. To answer the first point, there seem to be 26 sources, some of them very questionable ones like the World Marxist Review, but what they all have in common is that they appear to go no further than trivial mentions. To deal with the second point, there are 100 Congressional hearings in any one calendar year and the one in question wasn’t even about the subject, it was about the violence in NI in general, so this doesn’t establish notability.

In equivalent cases, such as Keith Bennett, the page is a redirect to a larger article. In this case the appropriate article would be United Campaign Against Plastic Bullets so I’m requesting a redirect there. The controversy surrounding the issue of plastic bullets is notable, the individuals aren’t. Valenciano (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, this should be smerged and redirected. The individual is not notable, the incident is, but the incident affects multiple individuals. A clear distinction shuld be drawn between the two. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• A redirect is an ordinary editorial action. It does not involve the deletion tool in any way. Indeed, you have the tool yourself for doing that very thing. Only come to AFD if you want an administrator to get out the deletion tool and actually delete something. Uncle G (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • A redirection is almost certain to be controversial i.e. disputed by creator. Valenciano (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • This is clearly notable, as per our policies and is being expanded. A quick look at the sources should address the unsupportable suggestions above. I'll ignore the assumptions of bad faith. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • So what? If something is disputed, you discuss. The article's creator has a user talk page, the article itself has a talk page, even the relevant WikiProjects have talk pages. Come here to Articles for Deletion only when you want something deleted. Otherwise you are just wasting the time of the closing administrator. Uncle G (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Domer48, I'm happy to discuss how much weight these sources carry, but I'm not going to be swayed by 1) an unsupported claims that the subject is "clearly notable, as per our policies"; 2) a Google search (which in this case is open to reasonable dispute as to proof of notability); 3) a blanket dismissal of the deletion reasons as "unsupportable suggestions"; or 4) an obvious insinuation of bad faith editing. For what it's worth, yes, this was a tragic death, but we don't document every tragic death on wikipedia, or even every tragic death due to a conflict involving paramilitaries - that is down to WP:NOTNEWS. It is one of many unfortunate chapters in the wider history of The Troubles, and if this belongs anywhere, it is in the history of the troubles. The coverage I saw was incidental to wider subjects. I can't see sufficient justification for a stand-alone article about this individual victim, and certainly not an article which - if the emotive language is anything to go by - seems to be taking sides. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

First, "the main source used is the Relatives for justice website" is not true. If the site is not as is claimed a WP:RS bring it to the appropriate notice board like wise indymedia. It was not true when I first created the article and is defiantly not true now.

Second, "the subject fails the general notability guideline as she hasn’t been covered in depth in reliable sources" again, completely untrue. The subject of the Article has be covered in over forty books and journals and I have not even included newspapers yet.

"what coverage there is appears to fall under WP:NOTNEWS" again, untrue! Describing the substance of the article as an indiscriminate collection of information is unsupportable.

"When all the padding is stripped away...we’re left with the simple fact that she was one of over 3,000 people who died in the Northern Ireland troubles" again untrue! What padding? Detailing the incident, covering the comments of notable individuals, information on the inquest, the subject being raised in a Congressional Hearing? How many of those killed were children, how many of those children were killed with a plastic bullet to the head, how many children shot in the head with a plastic bullet appeared on the cover of a book, in her coffin? That cuts the figure of 3,000 down quite a bit.

The assumption of bad faith is quite obvious, commenting on my intentions has no bearing on this request.

On sources, it is claimed that some of them are "very questionable" and only cites one. They go on to claim that what the remaining sources all have in common is that "they appear to go no further than trivial mentions." Well appearances can be deceiving, and as I asked the question here and got no response, why did they ask again here.

I agree with Uncle G with regard to this request, there are plenty of forums. Lets hope the points I have addressed will not require me having to go through them again. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Surely the subject must be covered in detail in at least a couple of national-level newspaper articles from 1981? If so, keep, otherwise delete... the Relatives for Justice website cannot seriously be regarded as a reliable source as per WP guidelines. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)