Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:16, 30 January 2007

Diarmuid O'Neill

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)
• Keep - references show broad news coverage. Definitely notable; one doesn't have to commit a "major atrocity" to be included on Misplaced Pages. Walton monarchist89 18:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - noticeable individual with several news articles about him --Barry 19:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as above.--Vintagekits 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Keep per above.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. Argyriou (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages.
• 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)
• Delete per Nom - Kittybrewster 22:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Soltak | Talk 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Additonally the "delete" votes immediately follow Astrotrain undergoing a campaign in canvassing!!!--Vintagekits 23:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be more aptly described as raising awareness.--Couter-revolutionary 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Raising awareness by leaving a biased messege to those he knew would vote "delete" is canvassing.--Vintagekits 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• keep. Questions in parliament and Amnesty's interest in the case amount to notability in my book. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Anyone who's turned up and said "Delete - nn" or "Delete per nom" (which is the same thing as the nom was "nn"), needs to show how it fails to meet the notability guidelines. Just saying "delete - nn" or "delete per nom" is worthless if you fail to explain why. Trebor 07:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Delete unless it is Misplaced Pages's intention to carry a biography of every dedicated murderer of innocent civilians who ever existed. David Lauder 11:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages editor has the fundamental right to vote on deletions? David Lauder 11:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why dont we let others judge by looking at you history of contributions--Vintagekits 11:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a dedicated monarchist to me!GiollaUidir 11:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And if we look at your histories: and , you both look like dedicated republicans, in fact Vintagekits states that he is!--Couter-revolutionary 12:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Delete: Agree with the comments posted variously above: (1) that Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

Really, maybe you need to familiarise yourself with WP:CANVAS--Vintagekits 13:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

• Comment, the farce continues, the canvassed, canvasser--Vintagekits 12:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • • Comment, I have officially reported the matter here if you would like to comment.--Vintagekits 14:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep With news coverage that broad it sure seems like a notable enough event to make him notable by extension. No one's saying this needs to become an "IRA memorial" but this person definitely seems to be more noteworthy than the average IRA member.--Dycedarg ж 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates