Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group)


 * 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 speedy keep, as a disruptive nomination (second criterion in Speedy_keep). | Mr. Darcy talk 17:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable criminal gang- no real evidence of existence. So called acts include assualt and armed robery, though no cites or referneces given to back this up. Basic criminal activity is not enough to become a notable terrorist organisation. Astrotrain 22:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * redirect to Continuity IRA. They have the same Irish name as the Irish Defence Force Óglaigh na hÉireann, so they'll have to change it, if they haven't already, to avoid confusion. Totnesmartin 23:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Independent Monitoring Commission is the source of all the claims in the article, and they are sourced. Please actually read the article before making claims about it. The IMC considers them notable enough to list in their regular reports (they give reports about every three months, I believe). They have been mentioned in every IMC report since February of 2006, which is just about a year now. The group emerged from the Continuity IRA, but are distinct, and thus should not be kept within the CIRA article. The modern Irish Defence Forces started out as the original Irish Republican Army, but so did all of the modern terrorist organizations. Should we just group the IDF with the Provisionals in the same article, simply because they evolved from the same group if you go back far enough? No. That would be asinine. This is how new IRA groups are started, and we have articles on most of them. As for changing the name: You can go ahead and try to convince the group that they need to change their name, but as it stands, this is the only name we have to refer to them by. Every IRA group to ever exist has claimed the name of Oglaigh ne hEireann at one point or another, as well as the IDF. This is because they all tend to see themselves as the legitimate successors of the Irish Volunteers. It is not for us to decide the world; we are here to describe it. This article should be kept, just like every other IRA group we have.  Erin Go Bragh talk 23:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Independent Monitoring Commission is reliable source enough. Nomination not based in policy, since these sources were already in the article. — coe l acan t a lk  — 03:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are several news articles which reference the group (see, , , ) as well as, I assume, entries at the Gaelic Wikipedia (see either  or ). Unfortunatly, as far as I can tell, there is more then one groups using the title besides the Irish Defence Forces and the splinter group which makes searching a bit difficult. However, in my own opinion, the article certainly provides enough references to establish its notability. MadMax 04:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is unfortunate that the name of the group (Óglaigh na hÉireann - Volunteers of Ireland) has been used not only by the Irish Defence Force but also by the Provisional IRA, it makes it difficult to search for sources that make reference to this group in particular. However, the IMC reports are reliable enough sources. The group's activities appear to include assault and robbery, but their notability is asserted by the statement that the group had made and planted IEDs, and referenced by the IMC. --Canley 06:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Reading through Notability, I see the first sentence of the first section is as follows:
 * One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not1, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

Assuming that the IMC's multiple reports constitute "non-trivial reliable published works, whose sourves are independent of the subject itself", which is true if the IMC is doing it's job, the topic is notable according to established Wikipedia guideline.  Erin Go Bragh talk 08:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.