Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams family abuse controversy


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Adams family abuse controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is actually no such thing as the Adams family abuse controversy, the title and article is coatracked onto a one event BLP Liam Adams, for which as one event does not qualify as notable,. Almost all the content is about Liam Adams, with a singe comment about mr Adams, keeping it under this title only because as a one event Liam Adams is not notable is a back door approach to inclusion, content that is relevent to other articles should be transferred there if it is not already and redirects as appropriate. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep It's debatable whether this article is best kept under this title or moved to Liam Adams, but this issue has attracted quite a bit of attention over the past few months, it is notable. PatGallacher (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You believe and voted as I did to move the article to Liam Adams, there is no such thing as the adams family controversy apart from gerry said in an interview that his father abused members of the family, that is it, everything else is about Liam. There is actually no such thing as the title of this article. Check for yourselves on the find sources template just above and see what you find, the viewing figures on this article are all internal, this title and even this topic doesn't exist in real life and no one is looking for it for that reason. Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Thirteen references from reputable news sites would suggest the controversy is indeed notable, and we both know that's only scratching the surface of the articles that have been written on this. It may need a better name, but that's a different issue. The other 'controversy' section, as stated in the article's talk page, still needs to be included - what Gerry Adams did or didn't do when the allegations were made, and Liam Adams continuing (or not) involvement in Sinn Féin and youth work. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You need a better name, that is scratching the surface, your comments actually support my position, there is no such thing as the title of this article, you have thirteen citations, so what? The truth is you have a single comment that could possibly be related to the topic. thirteen references and a single comment because that is all it is worth. Look at the viewing figures for this article, the views are internal, this is clearly due to the fact that this controversy does not exist except in the minds of a few editors here, I ask all editors considering this issue to have a look at the search results. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep. References from reputable news sources involving a controversy about Liam Adams (former Sinn Féin member), questions raised about the actions (or lack of action) of Gerry Adams (a notable politician himself). Granted, there are mainly questions about the latter rather than concrete information, but the matter is still ongoing - the extradition case has been postponed to April 2010. The article may need to be renamed at some stage, but as events are still ongoing and a renaming can be done at a future date. (In contrast to, say, the Iris Robinson scandal where both the extramarital affair and the financial irregularities are at least known about, even though there may be further issues for Peter Robinson.)Autarch (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep notable and well referenced controversy. Valenciano (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per the extensive reasoning I'm about to give.
 * The current article title is a nonsense, including the scope it implies. To the best of my knowledge there are *zero* sources saying there is any controversy about the revelations about Gerry Adams Sr.. The supposed controversy is about Liam Adams and the extent of his relationship with his brother Gerry Adams, Gerry Adams Sr. is nothing to do with it. Attempts to move the article to a title that reflect the actual scale of the supposed controversy are reverted.
 * The article cannot be moved to Liam Adams as Liam Adams fails WP:BIO and more importantly WP:BLP1E. He's an alleged sex offender who doesn't pass any part of WP:BIO, and notability is not inherited so any arguments about him being the brother of Gerry Adams are irrelevant. If the article were to be moved to Liam Adams he would have to meet WP:BIO under his own steam, and he fails to do so by a considerable margin.
 * The article doesn't have to exist because Iris Robinson scandal exists, that's an entirely different article that has to be judged on its own merits and has no bearing on whether this article should exist or not.
 * The article fails WP:NOTNEWS, and more specifically fails Notability (events) which deals with the notability of news stories. Let's take each of the criteria in turn shall we?
 * "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect" - there's clearly no enduring historical significance, and no significant lasting effect. That is unless someone wants to provide evidence of it "act[ing] as a precedent or catalyst for something else"?
 * "Events are also very likely to be notable if they are have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." - no evidence of national or internation impact (note the word is impact and not coverage) and no evidence of it being "very widely covered in diverse sources", unless people would like to provide it?
 * "Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event" - we seem to be getting to the relevant ones now.
 * "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news and stories lacking lasting value, and viral phenomenae) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance" - bingo, the relevant one! Being widely reported doesn't make it notable per the notability guidelines in the absence of enduring significance which there is no evidence of. So despite all the "it's notable" keep !votes above they fail to explain exactly how the controversy meets the relevant notability guidelines, whereas I have explained in detail how the controversy fails to meet them.
 * It's a classic WP:POVFORK, created by an editor with a history of violating BLP in relation to Gerry Adams to sidestep the lack of consensus for inclusion of this tabloid fodder news story that's largely irrelevant to Gerry Adams in his article. There is no scandal or controversy that Liam Adams allegedly abused his daughter, the controversy are the supposed inactions of Gerry Adams in relation to the alleged abuse. Therefore the whole article is a "criticism of Gerry Adams" article, and thus a POV fork.
 * There is nothing relevant to actually merge to Gerry Adams. I attempted to merge the relevant part of the POV fork back into his article and was spasm reverted. However the only part that's actually relevant to Gerry Adams career is Ian Paisley Jr calling for an investigation into whether Gerry Adams broke Northern Ireland Assembly rules, which I was planning to remove at some point in the future if an investigation never happened. Weeks and weeks later there's no sign of an investigation, so there's nothing to merge.
 * The matter is not still ongoing. Any criminal charges relating to Liam Adams are a different matter from the actual controversy. Since Gerry Adams handling of the situation started after the alleged abuse had finished, it's extremely unlikely anything relevant will be coming out in the court case since the evidence there will be from when the alleged abuse was happening not after it had finished.
 * The comments above can be safely ignored as little more than WP:ILIKEIT, or more specifically in the case of three editors WP:IDONTLIKEGERRYADAMS. They fail to provide any evidence that the article isn't a POV fork and that the controversy meets Notability (events), in fact their bare claims of "it's notable" mean they are seemingly oblivious to the existence of it.


 * Any attempt to fix the problems with the article such as removing off topic information are reverted (hint: the person being referred to isn't Liam Adams and is someone not directly connected to the Adams family or the actual controversy), moving it to a more accurate title (see above), merging the POV fork back to where it belongs (see above) are blindly reverted by the creator/guardian of the article (you know, the one who has a history of violating BLP when it comes to Gerry Adams). It's a POV fork with BLP issues, it fails WP:NOTNEWS and Notability (events), and it should be deleted. 2 lines of K  303  14:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I will try to reply to some of this.

1. It seems that One Night in Hackney is raising issues of alleged POV forking, inappropriate titles etc., but in reality he objects to this information being presented in any form in any article. Or have I misunderstood something?

2. I did revert the move to "Liam Adams scandal" as this was a controversial move taken without discussion, if some people feel this would be a better title a move request should be raised through the appropriate channels.

3. I might accept this being merged into another larger article if it would be kept there, but is this going to happen?

4. Limited disputes about what is or is not relevant content does not justify deleting a whole article. PatGallacher (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Only your point 4 is worthy of addressing. I haven't suggested deleting the article based on limited disputes, I've suggesting deleting it because it fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Notability (events) and WP:POVFORK, all three of which are valid reasons for deleting. Now would anyone who has comented so far like to address those points, or are you operating under the assumption that saying "keep it's notable" without explaining why it meets the relevant notability guidelines is a valid argument? 2 lines of K  303  14:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * oops, sorry, perhaps we should allow this to run a couple of extra days to compensate for that, I would also like to see comments from the wider community. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - some points:
 * The title of the article seems appropriate given who is involved - a man accused of very serious offences, his brother - a prominent politician - who was told of said alleged offences circa 1987 and the woman making the complaint - all members of the same family.
 * WP:Notability (events) states that Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. and It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Given that the politician involved is a senior politician in government in Northern Ireland and his credibility has been questioned, this could well have implications for politics in Northern Ireland - will this result in Sinn Féin losing power? That in itself would be a notable event for which the controversy could be a catalyst.
 * Regarding the issue of the use of the word controversy, some statements made by some of those involved are disputed by others involved, as are other statements.
 * The Iris Robinson scandal was mentioned as a contrast (basic facts are settled, even if implications for Peter Robinson are unclear) not WP:OSE. In the case of the subject of this article, there are unanswered questions and events related to it are still unfolding.
 * While the criminal charges are not the same as the controversy, there is a connection, namely that what was done (or not done) to prevent what is alleged to have happened happening again - public statements made by some have been disputed by others and the trial could well settle some of these parts of the controversy.Autarch (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources saying this may be a catalyst for something else, or is that your own prediction? 2 lines of K  303  14:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that different parties disagree about what has happened it seems reasonable to conclude that a court case would be a catalyst - people have to testify and the court will have to decide on the truth - since some statements are mutually contradictory they cannot all be true. Granted, the extradition case has been adjourned, but as pointed out above, WP:Notability (events) states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Given that the credibility of a senior politician is at stake, it seems reasonable that it would have a lasting effect. Then there's the other matter - who else knew about the allegations? The original reports mentioned the RUC were initially approached but they alleged the RUC tried to recruit the victims mother. This controversy could cause upheavals for organisations other than Sinn Féin.Autarch (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * STRONG DELETE The references and view are not strong enough to justifiably keep on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.182.56 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What problems are there with the references? What do you mean by view?Autarch (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (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.