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. I see POV-pushing on both sides of this discussion, but good arguments are brought up by both sides. That being said, the article has undergone substantial improvement (particularly in regards to WP:V) and the late push seems to be for keeping. IronGargoyle 17:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia 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)).

Martin McCaughey

[edit]

This AfD has been listed on WikiProject Irish Republican Army/AfD -- Tyrenius 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was tagged for notability concerns and a prod, which was removed without improvement to the article, so it's here for AfD. There is no indication in the article of meeting notability requirements. Not everyone who was shot in the "troubles" in Ireland will have their own biographical entry — only those who in some way have achieved wider prominence, which can be established by mainstream coverage, of which there is none cited here. It might merit inclusion in a wider article about the alleged "shoot to kill" policy or whatever, but not, from what is written, as a stand-alone article. Tyrenius 13:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the nominator, there is nothing notable in his biography. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:, as per nom--could not have said it better myself - not every PIRA member deserves his or her own page any more than every loyalist deserves his own page.El chulito 13:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Lets not get this out of persective, over 3,000 people died in "the Troubles", how many of them have articles? McCaughey was actually the youngest ever elected representative in All of Ireland and at the same time held membership of PIRA and held up by Unionists as the prime example of inextricable link between Sinn Fein and the PIRA. When I removed the tag I did state that I would fill in the full details tonight and would have thought that that would have been taken in good faith and given a chance to extend the article. Obviously not. I will extend it tonight so i would appriciate if you would revisit your "delete" votes after that. regards--Vintagekits 15:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- yet another non notable IRA member- Wikipedia is not an IRA memorial site- we have articles on the notable terrorists who committed the worst attrocities, but not for every single member. Astrotrain 15:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The usual WP:IDONTLIKEIT stuff from the some editors. If he "didnt do anything" why was he shot? Should we delete articles of Harry Stanley, Jean Charles de Menezes, Abner Louima or Sean Bell? The only thing of note for those people is being killed by security forces. With McCaughey getting shot is not the only thing of note in his life.--Vintagekits 11:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly stop littering AfDs WP:IDONTLIKEIT, when the editor has clearly stated an acceptable reason: "non notable". Tyrenius 07:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. - Kittybrewster 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Any reason for your asertion?--Vintagekits 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply per User:Jill Teed - Kittybrewster 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so what exactly is your reason?--Vintagekits 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More crack IRA memorialising from the IRA Wikiproject. Anyway, shouldn't 'volunteer' be with a lower case 'V'?--Major Bonkers 17:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The project you have mentioned has only just started and is nothing to do with this article. Kindly assume good faith until proved otherwise. This isn't a soapbox for your personal prejudices. Putting forward false and irrelevant arguments only weakens the case, and may well be discounted by the closing admin. Tyrenius 18:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point remains valid that this is yet another IRA memorial page. Your imputation of prejudice is ad hominem (and pompous).--Major Bonkers 21:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have displayed your prejudices clearly above where you attack the whole of a Wikproject. The argument of "memorial page" is irrelevant to the debate, which is concerned with the notability of the subject. "Memorial page" relates to the style of writing, which — if your observation is true (and I don't think it is anyway) — can easily be amended. Tyrenius 21:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My argument, which you are misrepresenting, is that this article (amongst others) is one of a series on minor IRA members which individually and sequentially (1) do not satisfy the notability criteria and (2) display bias. The issue of the Wikiproject is irrelevant and has not been criticised by me per se.--Major Bonkers 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your point. I had no intention of misrepresenting you, though possibly I misunderstood you. We have to deal with this as an individual article; bias, if present, can be corrected; non-notability is the case for deletion. Tyrenius 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your gracious response. I apologise for the slightly fraught tone, above. My original comment was rather facetiously expressed.--Major Bonkers 22:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning to delete.~~ The claim about being Britain's youngest "representative" (of what sort?) would make him notable, if there was any press coverage outside the council's area to that effect. But absent a reliable source for that claim, this person does not appear notable enough to keep. Argyriou (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uber Strong Keep- Above votes for delete really make sense and looks like the usual anti-Republican campaigners have voted for delete like they did here and [1] and is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Talented footballer who made the County Tyrone minor GAA squad and gave that up to become a republican - mildly notable.
Friend of the "Loughall Martyrs" - mildly notable.
Elected as a Sinn Fein representative to Dungannon DC - mildly notable.
Was the youngest elected representative in all of Ireland at the time. notable
Joins the PIRA - mildly notable
Member of the IRA and an elected councillor at the same time - notable
Held up by Unionists as the epitiemy of the link between Sinn and the IRA. notable
Plotted to kill fellow members of Dungannon DC - notable
Made leave Dungannon DC due to non attendance - mildly notable
The reason for not turning up the council meeting - getting involved in a shoot out with RUC officers - notable
One of Britain’s most wanted men - notable
Killed by the British Army under disputed circumstances as part of the shoot to kill policy - notable
Ongoing court cases regarding the disclosure of the British Arm and security forces documents relating to the shooting. - notable

There are more points I could list, however, if the above does not show notability then I am not sure what does.--Vintagekits 19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to prove sufficient coverage of 11 and 7, and if this particular incident in 12 gained attention, not merely an instant news story, but something more durable. Tyrenius 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not notable. 2. Not notable. 3. Only notable if Dungannon was a stronghold of anti-Sinn Fein votes. 4. Notable, but unsourced. 5. Not notable. 6. Maybe notable, if uncommon enough. 7. Vaguely notable (but, Tyrenius, sourced in the link to the parliamentary debate). 8. Plotted, not notable. If he'd done it, notable. 9. not notable. 10. Maybe notable, if sourced. 11. Notable, depending how often they rotate the list, but not sourced. 12. Not notable unless non-IRA sources made a big fuss about it.

So, based on Vintagekits' claims, he's notable. That's enough to prevent a Speedy Delete. If references are provided for 4 and 11, then I'll change to keep. Argyriou (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a hard man to please! What about the court cases over his death also. Anyway, for 4. See the Tírghrá reference that I have added. for 11. See transcript of the BBC doc "BRITS". Also I hardly think that being the youngest elected representative in Ireland is more notable than getting shot in an SAS "shot-to-kill" mission only months after getting kicked out of a council after being in another shout out. Not sure I'd like to live in your council area if that is just normal to you. Hope the references help.--Vintagekits 23:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. The reference for #4 does not show that there was any note taken of McCaughey's youth as a councillor at the time he was elected a councillor, therefore does not demonstrate that he was notable for that. #11 does seem to make him notable, but there's not really enough context for the claim - how big was the "Most Wanted" list in those days? How often did people come off or get put on it? But there is a reference that he was "most wanted in Britain", which does seem to make one pretty notable, unless the term was so overused as to be meaningless. Argyriou (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUTELY Keep - this nomination is absurd. Almost any one of the "notable" examples above would be grounds for keeping this article. Together, the person is undeniably notable. An administrator should step in and veto this nomination. It smacks of partisanism. --Lee Vonce 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, if you'll look at Tyrenius's contributions, you'll see that he's vociferously defended several other IRA member articles at AfD, and that he's been coming down pretty hard on most of the people supporting this nomination. Argyriou (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - perhaps speedily - This IRA member is even less notable than some of the others which should have been deleted. What did he do, except join the IRA to make him notable. ~~I shall echo what's been said many times before, wikipedia is not a memorial to the IRA.~~ --Couter-revolutionary 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've said above "memorial to the IRA" is a non-argument, emotive, rhetorical and not relating to policy. Non-notability is the consideration. Tyrenius 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Righto, he is not notable as he didn't do anything except have membership of a banned organisation.--Couter-revolutionary 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - obviously you havent read the article then!--Vintagekits 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF or alternatively express your point non-facetiously. Tyrenius 22:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be a speedy delete as it's contested, and speedies under CSD A7 are for "non controversial" deletions without any claim to notability. Tyrenius 22:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - Non-notable as per nom. ~~Not every IRA terrorist is encyclopedia-worthy.~~ Allow me to expand -- I know I was a bit flippant; I apologize. I have studied the Troubles to a certain degree, and many members of the IRA/INLA have had interesting backgrounds that some may view as "notable"; however we cannot (despite the possible intentions of some) give a page to every republican paramilitary with an interesting history or background, even if he was killed on active duty. And what about the majority of paramilitaries who were not killed - will every one of them get their own page? McCaughey is still a non-notable and I stand by my vote. Jill Teed 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You still dont give a reason, its still sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Given all the detaqils in the article as now what is the exact reason for aserting for being non-notable? regards--Vintagekits 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We cannot give a page to every republican paramilitary with an interesting history or background" doesn't match any Wikipedia policy or guideline I know. Perhaps it would be more accurate for you to say that you believe that we should not, but if there's a policy or guideline preventing Wikipedia from including an NPOV article on every IRA member who satisfies WP:BIO, I'm not aware of it. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Clearly this person is notable. Vintagekits is right and so is Vonce. I don't understand why this was even nominated. There are claims to notability in the article that are being ignored. --Curtis Bledsoe 2 03:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First ever edit by this user name. Tyrenius 04:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to add that the keep vote by this "Curtis Bledsoe", who has no previous history on Wikipedia is suspicious and in the event of a tie vote should be disqualified for that reason unless he can prove his bona fides.Jill Teed 15:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three sources in the article declare him to be one of a pair, who were Britain's most wanted men at the time of his murder. Several other things listed by Vintagekits lead me to believe he's notable enough. Give it some time. Erin Go Bragh^talk 08:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Vintagekits' #4 and #7 above would appear to be notable. However, the article still needs work. I would have concerns about some of the current references - not all appear to actually state what they should be, or could be taken to be good sources. E.g., while it may well be true that "Republican sources claim the men were unarmed" I don't see how there's any way that claim can be verified by a reputable source. Bastun 11:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That claim is made by various sources and it also the subject ofthe court cases - links to the reports from the court cases have been referenced.--Vintagekits 11:38, 9

February 2007 (UTC)

Very strong keep. As per all reasons given by Vintagekits. Article subject fulfils practically all criteria (accross several fields) for inclusion. It is becoming tiring how many clearly notable person articles are being nominated for deletion purely under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GiollaUidir 11:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I agree with you and hope that some of the editors will change their vote now that the article has been improved.--Vintagekits 12:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: another article glorifying a subversive terrorist in Britain.David Lauder 13:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:per nom. I would also like to add that based on the most recent votes, it appears that this colloquy is degrading into a pro-IRA and anti-IRA ideological war, some of whose actors may have an agenda, and an administrator needs to step in now. While I believe User:David Lauder should have phrased his opinion differently, his view is that of almost all of the 60 million or so people living in Britain and most Americans who preferred not to involve themselves in the issue of terrorism prior to 9/11.Inthegloaming 14:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you but you misunderstand. Firstly these pages are supposed to be for comment as to why you feel the article should be or not be, deleted. I have given my reason. There are hundreds of thousands of ordinary terrorists world-wide who are not at all notable except that they voluntarily joined organisations dedicated to the murder for political purposes of innocent people, and may or may not have come to a sticky end themselves. I just don't think that Wikipedia should become a propaganda vehicle for terrorists. By all means have some sort of page explaining the organisation's existance but don't glorify the membership. David Lauder 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong Keep Very notable Irishman. The reasons Vintagekits and others have mentioned make him definetly worthy of an article. Derry Boi 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing to add to what the other uses have already said. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 19:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The claims about being the youngest elected representive and one of Britain's most wanted IRA members would probably warrant keeping but it needs tidying up, I've just removed some nasty, unsourced claims. DavyJonesLocker 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some IRA members are notable and some aren't. This man is one of the latter. The claims of notability above are simply not enough: being a councillor is not grounds for nobility by itself, nor is membership of the IRA, being killed during the Troubles or having a low-profile lawsuit on-going about the nature of death. Also, the assertion that he was one of Britain's wanted men appears to be based solely on the transcript of a BBC documentary and not any official government listing. As a side-note, the article itself suffers badly from POV even after recent clear up attempts. The phrase "Loughall Martyrs" particulaly stands out.--Jackyd101 01:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judging by the references, I think there's a good case that he meets WP:BIO. Unfortunately, it looks like the abuse of AfD to push a particular POV has resumed. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "The pair were said to be Britain's two most wanted IRA men at the time" - sounds notable enough to me. Getting rid of it would remove information that you would be hard-pushed to find in a hurry anywhere on the internet. Logoistic 03:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logoistic - That is just not so. Just Google his name and add IRA or shot dead or something like that and a cascade of pro-IRA sites and shrines to the IRA dead will emerge. If that's the only reason for your vote; pls. reconsider. (see my vote below)Conrad Falk 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the reference here. It seems to be a neutral source (I know the BBC is, but it's someone speaking within it) - from a narrator of a documentary presumably, in which case it looks good to me. Logoistic 02:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Is clearly notable per WP:BIO. Peter Taylor is one of the most respected journalists regarding Northern Ireland and The Troubles, attempting to discredit the transcript (hosted on the BBC site I hasten to add) of a programme he produced is inappropriate. He's won awards for his reporting on Northern Ireland, which include awards for the programme someone is attempting to discredit [2]. One Night In Hackney 09:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thats quite strong language there. I wasn't attempting to "discredit" the BBC documentary, my point merely was that the claim that McCaughey was one of 'Britain's most wanted men' (and therefore is notable enough for a Wikipedia article) is based on a single line from a single documentary. This alone is not enough evidence to my mind to grant someone a page without wider corroboration or notability, which I do not feel this article as it currently stands provides. Please WP:AGF in future.--Jackyd101 10:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BIO The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person --Barry talk 16:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- After reviewing the page I find there is nothing notable - I was impressed with User:Jill Teed's analysis and concur with it.Conrad Falk 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've just noticed that Dessie Grew who was killed alongside McCaughey also has a Wikipedia page of his own which has less content and claims to notability than this one. Would it be appropriate to discuss both articles here (as they are substantially connected), or to potentially start a whole new Afd on that article when someone nominates it (as they probably will). I have no particular opinion on this, but I'm putting it out there mainly for feedback based on WP procedures.--Jackyd101 04:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's too late to add at this stage, though it could have been included at the beginning. I deliberately restricted the AfD to one article, rather than including similar ones so there could be a properly focused analysis and debate. Let's get this done, then reassess. Tyrenius 05:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks for clarifying--Jackyd101 06:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep- IRA Volunteer Martin McCaughey is of course a notable figure - particularly in the area he was born and lived in. McCaughey and Grew at the time of their deaths were senior members of the Tyrone IRA and had been involved in numerous attacks on members of the British Army and RUC including one suspected attack on undercover soldiers who were apparently tailing his car (Kevin Toolis' book Rebel Hearts includes reference to this). I've yet to see a single well thought out explanation as to why this article should be deleted. Irish Republican 07:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Taylor also deals with the deaths of McCaughey and Grew in his book and documentry called 'Brits'. If I recall correctly Taylor interviews a father of one of the two men (I've the book and programme somewhere in the house and will reference that when I get them).Irish Republican 07:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has changed hugely since the version that was nominated for AfD, which had no evidence of notability. It now, to my mind, validates its inclusion. However, none of the facts which now do that were present at the time of the nom. The initial responses on this page were of course made to the earlier version. As there is considerable challenge to IRA-related articles, it is highly advisable for those writing them to ensure that they are up to the present standard of this one, before posting in article space. I suggest preparation on a user sub page, or a Wikiproject IRA sub page. Tyrenius 02:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the cynical would expect, non-Darwin Award-winning wacky hijinks don't produce one of Wikipedia's best articles, but the subject is well-enough documented and referenced to stand alone. There are a few NPOV problems, or so it seems to me, but those will no doubt be resolved in time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is notable and the article is now in reasonable shape. John Vandenberg 05:57, 14 February 2007 (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.