Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esat Mobile Phone Licence Scandal

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 keep. AfD is not for making merge proposals, see Help:Merging for guidance.  Sandstein  05:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esat Mobile Phone Licence Scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Suggest merging this into either an article for Michael Lowry or Denis O'Brien. Golgofrinchian (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Given the brevity of the article and the minimal information, I'd agree with merging into the appropriate Bio. Bagheera (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a major breaking scandal in Ireland with the potential to damage Ireland's reputation at a time when it is struggling for its very economic survival. I am attempting to highlight major corruption in Ireland. Please do not silence me - I am an individual fighting against govt and corporate corruption. Please do not take the side of those with money and power. Please keep Internet freedom alive. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerald ire (talk • contribs) 18:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think anyone here is trying to silence you. But I will, gently, point out that Wikipedia isn't a political blog or really the place to make political statements. Those of us suggesting a merge are doing so as members of the Wikipedia community, trying to maintain the highest standards we can for the project as an on-line Encyclopedia. As written, the information in this article appears to be better merged with one of the biographies than as a stand alone article. Perhaps, rather than using Wikipedia as your tool to fight corruption, you could approach it as the editor of an encyclopedia article and a member of a large, (ideally) neutral, on-line community. Cheers. Bagheera (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The slightest of research would indicate this incident has been dominating national news, has been the subject of a half a decade long govt tribunal of inquiry with lasting effects, and has a major impact on some of the most important figures in the country. It is beyond question notable and deserving of an article, something which the nominator, in not bothering to make an argument for deletion in this AFD, would appear to tacitly acknowledge. And if the current state of the article is deemed so objectionable, the proper merge target is Moriarty_Tribunal#Second_mobile_phone_licence. A little more due diligence in future, please. Skomorokh 19:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can appreciate that now the article makes more sense. At the time of the nomination this was the entire article:It is alleged that as a result benefits extended to Michael Lowry by Denis O'Brien that Esat Digifone was given an unfair advantage in the procurement of a mobile phone operator's licence.^[1]. Being I am from the US what appeared as a minor complaint about a phone company contract seemed to warrant at least an AfD. Honestly at the time I nominated it might have qualified for a Speedy Delete. I thought doing an AfD would allow the author to flesh it out more and present it better, that is why I suggested a merge. As it stands now it makes much more sense, but I cannot tell how the future of an article may be, so I went with what would be considered a moderate level of response. That being said it still looks like it might merge better into one of the other articles, like many other scandals are added to the parent article. Thanks for your comments Skomorokh. Golgofrinchian (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but suggest a name change to Esat Digifone licensing controversy. Plenty of material for a stand-alone article. RashersTierney (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as it is non-notable on its own by any standard. Not even a huge amount of Irish coverage, and none outside AFAICT. Collect (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - into whichever article fits best, this is an even which does not need mentioning outside of a section of an article. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as a separate article - many other links beyond Messrs O'Brien and Lowry. And still highly contentious.Red Hurley (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - The nominator has suggested merging and not deletion which does not require any discussion at AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2011 (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.