Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordan Gallagher

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 delete. The strongest points are made in favor of deletion. As RomanSpa points out, victims of terrorist activities are not automatically notable Guerillero | My Talk 03:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordan Gallagher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject is one of over three and a half thousand victims of the Northern Ireland ethnic violence from the late sixties till recently. While every death is a tragedy, few if any are notable for an encyclopedia. The contributing editor has created dozens of articles regarding individual victims, none of them individually notable. I had speedied the three I am adding to AFD now, but that was rejected on the basis that they had "plenty of sources", but this is not the case. Some only had a few refs, and these tended to be news stories that do not confer notability.

(Note that some of these articles have already been speedied.)

The AFD for other similar articles have said there may be a possibility of a merge to other articles. While I disagree (due to the risk of "indiscriminate lists), I'll throw the suggestion out there for discussion. Dmol (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The killing is notable and adequately documented, even if the person is not otherwise notable. Eastmain (talk •

Comment. Can you advise WHY you think the killing was notable.--Dmol (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)contribs) 16:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Move to Killing of Gordan Gallagher? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There would probably have been significant coverage at the time in British and Irish newspapers, but verifying this would probably require access to hard-copy or microfilm collections of newspapers. If anyone has access to the archives of The Times or other newspapers that hide their archives behin a paywall, perhaps they could check there. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Eastmain, but you still have not demonstrated why these particular deaths are notable for an encyclopedia. No-one disputes that the killings made the papers at the time. But so do traffic accidents, muggings, non-terrorism related killings, missing people, etc. This does not mean that the death is in any way notable. Do you contend that all victims of the Troubles (over 3500 of them) are worthy of inclusion. If so, then we would have to add all the victims from Sudan, Congo, Ukraine, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. If this is not the idea you want, what makes these examples different. Nothing does. They were sad tragic events that happened on an almost daily basis for thirty years.--Dmol (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'll repeat what I have already said in a similar debate: Whilst any death is tragic, and deaths due to natural disasters and conflicts, declared or undeclared, seem particularly so, it is our policy that the subjects of articles must be notable. For this reason we do not have articles on every soldier killed in a war, every victim of a pandemic, or everyone who died in a horrific disaster, though we will probably have articles on the war, pandemic or disaster in question. We do have articles about people who have died in such circumstances, but only where those people were already notable for other reasons. Although Mr Gallagher's death was a tragedy he himself was not notable. It is not our place to provide personal memorials. RomanSpa (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would suggest that the killing and its aftermath is notable, especially for the family's drive to seek answers from a still-current political figure who was in charge of the Derry IRA at the time. Of course we cannot list all such deaths, but we can at least list notable ones, if only to represent the others. However it is not, and was not, intended as a personal memorial. Fergananim (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this still doesn't make this particular person notable. We cannot have articles about people simply because questions are asked about their deaths, even if these questions are directed at current politicians. The correct place for covering such questions is in articles about the tragic events in question, and, where there are suitable references, in the articles about any notable people involved or implicated. Mr Gallagher himself was not a notable person, and he does not acquire notability through his death or because questions about his death are being directed at some notable person. Without wishing to seem callous, my point is that Mr Gallagher himself could have been replaced by another person: then that other person would have featured in the tragic events, their family would be asking questions, and the same basic questions would still be directed at the notable person mentioned. The context in which the killing took place is certainly notable, and we do indeed have coverage of that in Wikipedia (as we should). But an article on Mr Gallagher does not belong here, any more than we should have articles on the individual victims of 9/11. RomanSpa (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We also certainly can't mention some victims, to "represent the others": we are not in a position to decide who might or might not be chosen as representatives, and would be required to make invidious comparisons entirely outside the scope of this project. RomanSpa (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not a clue what makes this boy and his death notable. Secondly, it don't have the idea that the article is neutral enough. No idea why Martin McGuinness is featured here. The Banner talk 22:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Wikipedia is not a memorial and I cannot see from the article in its present form what criterion would elevate this particular tragedy above the 3,000-odd other deaths during the war. Fergananim, above, attempts to establish notability on the basis that the victim's parents "seek answers". As painful as their situation is, I do not recognise that their valid and poignant desire is sufficient reason to include this victim as an encyclopaedia entry. The project does not exist either to validate such deserving people nor to provide moral support for the victims of injustice. If their search for answers actually yielded any, perhaps such answers could change the narrative in a way that might carry an article such as this across the threshhold of notability, since murderers so rarely provide satisfaction. — O'Dea (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note following recent edits. I am extraordinarily unhappy with recent edits to this article, which consist largely of highly emotive quotations. These quotations do not in any way affect the informational content of the article, but seem to me to be calculated to produce an emotional response that will tend to bias contributions to this debate. RomanSpa (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While one person out of so many becomes notable is hard to explain, but the sources are multiple, in depth, and involve analysis over time. He is notable WP:GNG.I am One of Many (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's also worth noting that this and similar articles in any case are covered by established Wikipedia policy, as covered at WP:VICTIM; victims of terrorism are Not Notable per existing policy. RomanSpa (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2014 (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.