Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Agnew

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. There are no strong arguments either side the panda ₯’ 10:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Agnew

[edit]
Sydney Agnew (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) 22:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you advise WHY you think the killing was notable.--Dmol (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 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) 02:15, 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) 04:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 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 Agnew's death was a tragedy he himself was not notable. It is not our place to provide personal memorials. RomanSpa (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - hard to find sourcing for a notable person is not a reason for deletion. if there are sources to be found then it can be found.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And again, for the third time, I am asking - why do you think this killing is notable. It has nothing to do with sources or the lack of them.--Dmol (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "hard to find sourcing" is prima facie evidence against a person being notable. RomanSpa (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the murder affected Diplock hearings, then a single sentence saying so can be added to the Diplock courts article. It does not justify a standalone article about someone not notable in himself. — O'Dea (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Mr Agnew is "known only in connection with a criminal event" and therefore "should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article". RomanSpa (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 03:28, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydney_Agnew&oldid=1141946497"