Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Kerr (loyalist)


 * 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. Article's subject is found to be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Alex Kerr (loyalist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason Zoidberg262 (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, this page should be deleted as 'Alex Kerr' is not a notable person as defined by Wikipedia standards. Secondly, there is no such person as 'Alex Kerr' from Northern Ireland during this period involved in the UDA, there is a person of a very similar name who was involved in the UDA until the organisation was proscribed which resulted in him resigning from said organisation. Thirdly, there is a Right to be Forgotten as established in the Google Spain case the material on this site is no longer relevant, it contains significant inaccuracies, and it is outdated, it relates to events in the early 1990's and before.Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Strong Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoidberg262 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Zoidberg262 (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * commentI don't think Right to be Forgotten applies to Wikipedia. Who is the "person of a very similar name..."? Deunanknute (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The article in question is well-sourced and well-written. The subject's notability has been established by the reliable sources provided by the page's creator. I speak as an editor who has created numerous articles on Northern Irish loyalists. Frankly the reasons given by the nominator for the article's deletion are nonsensical and I suggest the AfD tag is removed from the page ASAP.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as Jeanne. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeanne Boleyn- there should be a proper discussion, irregardless of your editorials of Northern Irish Loyalists. The sources consist of 2 books by the same author, neither of which are primarily about Mr Kerr.Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - the new European Proposal for General Data Protection Regulation applies to international companies who are active in the EU, and penalties can be applied to them for their actions in the EU, making this directive of global importance, therefore I respectfully disagree with Deunanknute, the right to be forgotten does apply here. The right has arisen from desires of individuals to "determine the development of their life in an autonomous way, without being perpetually or periodically stigmatized as a consequence of a specific action performed in the past."
 * Please sign your name after your comments. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am afraid the subjects 'notability' has not been established. 'Alex Kerr' is the incorrect person.Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to...you?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There was an 'Alec Kerr' in the UDA prior to 1992, when it was not a proscribed organisation. There was no 'Alex Kerr'.  Also how is the legal principle of the right to be forgotten nonsensical? Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What I meant about "Right to be Forgotten" is that I believe it applies to search engine results, not website content. Deunanknute (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The right to be forgotten principle is not confined to search engines, but to all data controllers. The right to be forgotten involves removing information that was publicly known at a certain time and not allowing third parties to access the information. Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources all say Alex. I am waiting for you to provide a source to back up your claims Zoidberg262.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For "Right to be Forgotten", doesn't the affected entity need to request the removal? Deunanknute (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Jeanne Boleyn in response to your comments regarding the article being well-sourced and well-referenced I would have to disagree with you. The article was claiming that Mr Kerr was a 'founder' of the LVF, this is just nonsense.  The LVF Wikipedia page itself does not mention Mr Kerr, it only refers to Billy Wright establishing it after the McGoldrick murder.  As a consequence of this unfounded association between Mr Kerr and the LVF Mr Kerr's Article 8 rights and Article 2 are being violated and has put his life at risk.  I think your sources leave a lot to be desired. Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Valid point Deunanknute, where shall I send a signed form of authority? Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If all the sources say 'Alex' this supports my position, they are clearly inaccurate. Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are YOUR sources to disprove that his name was Alex?!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% certain, but is probably the place to look.
 * Also, as you are indicating that you are, or are acting on behalf of Alex Kerr, I suggest you read WP:COI for information regarding conflict of interest, and not make any further edits to Alex Kerr, or other articles to which you are connected. Discussion/talk pages, and other non article pages are fine. Deunanknute (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The current EU implementation of the Right to be forgotten applies only to links from search engines, not to the underlying text in news organization databases. Thus, the order in the original case required removal of links by Google but the newspaper was not required to remove the story from its online database. There is also the unresolved question of jurisdiction. For the Wikimedia Foundation's take, see [//blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/european-court-decision-punches-holes-in-free-knowledge/]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, if people wish to continue to repost defamatory and libellous material, which does not even meet wikipedia criteria (i.e. being unsourced) so be it. Where are the sources which state that Kerr co-founded the LVF? Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not, nor have not, claimed to be representing, or being, Alex Kerr. Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * How is this article about a 'notable' person? Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The article does use only 1 source primarily, and within that only 3 or 4 pages are cited at most, a second source is also used but it is by the same authors, also are they not specifically about Alex Kerr.  The sources are also primarily in relation to other events or people.  It does not appear that Alex Kerr has sufficient source material. Bonylad111 (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC) — Bonylad111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I only cautioned you about COI because you asked where you could send a signed form of authority. IF the article is true, I believe it is probably notable enough based on the events/contributions described. I will seek more references if necessary. As it stands the article (and the original version) appears to primarily cite the books "UVF" and "UVA". Are you claming these works to be false, or incorrectly cited? Are there problems with other sources? Or is your primary concern the overall notability of Alex/Alec Kerr? Deunanknute (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The parts about the founding the LVF are completely untrue - Billy Wright was the sole founder of the LVF, in any books/newspaper articles there is 0 mention of Kerr. Which leads on to how can he be described as notable for being a member of a legal organisation (the UDA) up until 1992? The question of articles 2 and 8 violations remains unanswered by anyone. Zoidberg262 (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * For example - "In early 1994 the UDA's Inner Council was made up of its six brigadiers - Kerr for South Belfast, Adair for West Belfast, Tom Reid for North Belfast, Gary Matthews for East Belfast, Billy McFarland for County Londonderry and north County Antrim and Joe English for Southeast Antrim. At the time English was attempting to build support for a ceasefire declaration by the Combined Loyalist Military Command. In this endeavour he was supported by Reid and Matthews but opposed vehemently by Adair." From Alex Kerr article. There is absolutely no sources for this section. And if it were true he would have been convicted for being a member of a proscribed organisation. The page is wide open for libel action. Zoidberg262 (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that by "articles 2 and 8" you are referring to the "European Convention on Human Rights" treaty? I don't see how article 2 applies. As far as article 8 (and the entire treaty), from what I can tell applies only to governments, and even then, only to those that are members. Wikipedia being neither a government, nor European. Deunanknute (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, of the ECHR - article 2 applies because this article is alleging that Kerr co-founded an illegal terrorist organisation which murdered people, clearly such association puts his life in danger... The convention rights have been codified into domestic UK law, and the courts have to read it in anyway. There is a horizontal effect so it applies to individuals/businesses as well as governments.  It does not matter if Wikipedia is European or not.  It is publishing material within EU jurisdiction.  Zoidberg262 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * weak delete - only for reasons of questionable notability. Deunanknute (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

°°°And the same goes for Bonylad111...I smell a pair of socks...--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * delete - I do not have access to the books cited in the article so I cannot comment on them. Doing some research into this person and the UDA/LVF I can find no mention of Alex Kerr founding the LVF, so there are issues of fact in this article. Also, while he does appear to have been a member of the UDA I can find no articles in relation to any convictions, I could understand the articles inclusion if he had been involved in a terrorist event (bombing/ shooting etc) but I can find no source (reliable or not) linking him to anything. There appears to be many tens of thousands of people being members of the UDA during its peak should every member get a page? The UDA link has some mileage but in my humble opinion the current article appears to focus more on other people and events and I struggle to see it as a bibliography on this man. There are large parts which are unsourced, and the LVF sections are dubious at best. From my research the LVF was a breakaway faction of the UVF in the mid ulster area (20/30 miles south of Belfast) I can not find any concrete sources, in fact any sources linking Alex Kerr to LVF activities. The article in its current form should be removed as it does appear to contain libellous material and the subject is of very questionable notability. Jeanclaudarnie1779 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC) — Jeanclaudarnie1779 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Interesting that user Jeanclaudarnie1779 has only one edit to his credit and that being to add a comment supporting the deletion of this article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Big time. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm arriving late to this one for several reasons, most notably that the nominator didn't inform me as the creator of the article that they had nominated it for deletion. However given their relative lack of other activity on Wikipedia I'll assume good faith on that one and take it that they didn't know about the rule.


 * The suggestion that this might be deleted for notability issues is a nice one that could sidestep setting a precedent but Kerr has clearly "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and so easily passes WP:GNG. These are included in the article and everything is sourced so I'm not seeing what the issue is on that score. Were there unsourced material I would have been amongst the first to remove it, as my involvement in the battle to keep the article on Billy McFarland properly sourced over the summer attests.


 * It is argued that the nominator does not have direct access to the sources and that is unfortunate but WP:V states that information must be able to be verified i.e. the sources need to accessible at some level. It doesn't say that subjects of articles have to have direct and immediate access to the sources and those used are readily available. They could be ordered through local libraries, purchased from second-hand bookshops or the internet and so if the nominator is keen to access them go right ahead.


 * That Kerr was both a leading member of the UDA and the LVF is attested by the sources included. If more are required then here we go:, , and . WP:V means that we must reflect what is written in the WP:RS. If the nominator feels Kerr is being misrepresented by those sources then it is the authors of those sources who are at fault, not Wikipedia. A good place to start would be Henry McDonald, who is on twitter (@henry_mcdonald) and could probably be reached through the Guardian's website.


 * Basically this is a notable person with a well sourced article that obeys the rules and spriti of Wikipedia. What this then comes down to is whether the recent ECJ ruling against Google with regards to the Right to be forgotten also applies to Wikipedia articles. Given that it is controlled by an American institution in the Wikimedia Foundation and it is not a search engine I fail to see how it could. However I'm no expert in internet regulation so that is for the closing admin to judge. However I would suggest if we do accept the primacy of a judgement that never once mentioned Wikipedia we are setting a dangerous precedent for the future.


 * That's all I have to say on the matter and I won't be revisiting this Afd, so thanks for your attention. I also will not be available on Wikipedia for a while so will not be entering into any further correspondence on this issue. Real life beckons. Keresaspa (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I still don't think there is enough depth of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. He is mentioned in articles about the UDA and the LVF, maybe this article should be merged to Loyalist Volunteer Force? Deunanknute (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is not enough depth of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO, it does not list any achievements or notable events, it really only states that he was in the UDA, it does not give dates of when he joined, it does not give dates when he left. It does not state the legality of the UDA until its proscription.  It does not state what involvement he had within the UDA really.  In relation to the LVF, I note the press articles mentioning Kerr in 2 of them, but the fact remains that there is unsourced material - where does it state he co-founded the LVF? There are no concrete facts, when did he join, did he join, if he did join that was a criminal offence as it was an illegal organisation, when did he leave, what is he supposed to have done? I agree the article could possibly be merged but it should be into the UDA page and LVF page.  There simply is not enough material to satisfy the notability criteria.  The sources cited on the page mention him rather than are about him - therefore would WP:BLP1E apply? Noteable for only one event (being in the UDA)? Also, WP:BLPCRIME? I can find no sources about paramilitary related convictions.  Zoidberg262 (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me tackle each of your worries, one by one, Zoidberg. Regarding dates, I daresay you will find few paramilitaries who take out an ad in the paper announcing having joined or left the UDA, UVF, PIRA, whatever. Secondly, it does state that he took over as South Belfast UDA brigadier when Jackie McDonald was imprisoned. A UDA brigadier carried considerable power as writer Peter Taylor himself affirmed in his book Loyalists with Andy Tyrie allowing each brigadier to run his area like a personal fiefdom. Thirdly there are plenty of sources as cited by Keresaspa that Kerr helped Wright found the LVF; which is further underpinned by the UVF Brigade Staff having ordered him out of NI. To say that there is not enough coverage and that Kerr was a minor member of the UDA is absurd and if Zoidberg is worried that the article fails to mention that the UDA was legal until 1992 well that is easiòy rememdied. I will go add that fact straight away to the page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Zoidberg, are you going to deny that following McDonald's arrest Alex Kerr was brigadier for South Belfast UDA and a member of its Inner Council? And as such is clearly notable considering the amount of power he would have wielded as can be confirmed in Taylor's book re UDA brigadiers. Will you insist that alongside Billy Wright and Mark Fulton, Kerr did not help found the LVF? And will you refuse to admit that Kerr was prominent at Drumcree? These facts are all backed up in the sources which Keresasapa has provided.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * * But it is not notable, I see articles have been deleted where people have been Mayors of towns/citites, and/or politicians but have been deleted because it is not notable enough. I argue the same here, so what if he was in the UDA, many tens of thousands were allegedly members as well. There are no significant or specific events (in fact no events), attributed to him and all the sources are not specifically about him.  If it is biographical in nature then surely simply things such as joined/left dates are relevant.  I still do not see sources stating he co-founded the LVF, he was not in the UVF to be expelled from it. I also note Wikipedia's policy to remove anything which is controversial, especially about living people in relation to Biographies.  I reiterate my earlier points that - WP:BLP1E apply. Noteable for only one event (being in the UDA). Also, WP:BLPCRIME.  The sources provided are subscription based.  Stating that he would have had a 'considerable amount of power' does not correlate to notability, it lacks depth of coverage, what exactly does this 'power' entail and over whom?  Zoidberg262 (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources attesting his senior role within the UDA and LVF. I have just added another reference, one which links to the source itself. As South Belfast brigadier he was more notable than an ordinary UDA foot solder, and as co-founder of the LVF, that only adds to not detracts from his notability. I am waiting for your source that refutes what Keresaspa's and my sources say.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In your edit, the article only states: "It is believed Wright and Kerr then formed the LVF." Hardly concrete source material, your edits do not reflect the ambiguity of the source. As Mayors are more notable than ordinary citizens yet not all can be described as notable your argument lacks weight.  I still do not see any reliable source stating he co-founded the LVF.  Zoidberg262 (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether he founded the LVF or not the article does not contain sufficient depth of the subject, with relevant secondary sources. Zoidberg262 (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And the article contains only 2 mentions of Kerr. Both very, very brief. Zoidberg262 (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * After your changes the article reads more like a narrative of the UDA rather than a biography of a living person. There are no notable events. Zoidberg262 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All we are hearing from you is your personal opinion without a single counter-source. It seems you have a definite COI on this article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not personal opinion, it is fact. Your sources are irrelevant, one mentions Kerr only twice (and only one of those mentions is vaguely relevant to the allegation, the content in the wikipedia page does not adequately reflect what is in the article), therefore it does not meet Wikipedia standards for secondary sources.  What sort of counter-sources would I need to prove the person is not notable? Surely, by virtue of a lack of sources he is not notable.  There is 0 sources linking him to any events legal or otherwise during his alleged time in the UDA or LVF, the article at best states he was a member of the UDA and very possibly the LVF, that is not personal opinion it is fact.  Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Peripheral material about other people should be removed. There is no relevance to the subject of a living persons profile.  Is this forum not for discussion rather than personal attacks? It is your personal opinion that he is notable, how do you feel your opinions are more valid than mine?  Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Burden of evidence rests with the editor, I don't have to prove a dot. Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Sources are not reliable. Also, "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."  Whether or not you are using sources, if it is defamatory it is still actionable against on this site.  Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am only following Wikipedia's own policies. Zoidberg262 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hor someone supposedly so familiar with Wikipedia's policies, I marvel that you failed to inform the page's creator Keresaspa of the deletion...--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC) nomination.


 * What is your problem Keresaspa? Are you saying one cannot make mistakes, and one is not allowed to research Wikipedia's policies to use it in support of their arguments? Resorting to personal attacks yet again. I could allege a conflict of interest with yourself because you are arguing in favour, just because somebody disagrees with you, don't resort to personal and underhand attacks, it goes completely against the ethos of the site.  Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I see you have moved to attack the stable and well-sourced Robin Jackson article. Are you a troll, Zoildberg262?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not going to get side tracked here. How is it 'trolling' when I only want to remove unsourced parts? Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also I note in 2013 somebody seriously questions the sources reliability on the Jackson article as they are mostly gutter press articles. Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * To summarise the argument that this biographical article about a living person does not meet the high standards for notability:
 * The majority of the article refers to other individuals and organisations, there is a distinct lack of material specifically in relation to Kerr
 * The height of notability of Kerr in this article would be - 1) He was in the UDA; 2) He was in the LVF - clearly in line with Wikipedia policy membership to an organisation does not automatically confer notability on a subject, the membership should have relevance to a notable event or events, which this article lacks as discussed below.
 * There is a complete lack of material in relation to any major event(s) or occurrence(s) (the height of notability would be the allegation that Kerr ordered graffiti to be written on walls + being present at Drumcree where many thousands also attended).
 * The sources cited could not be described as 'noteworthy' due to the overriding fact that the sources merely mention Kerr in several pages, there are no reliable, verifiable and noteworthy secondary sources about Kerr. In line with Wikipedia policy such sources should not be used (i.e. that merely mention a subject).
 * Wikipedia policy of the utmost relevance - "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." Any contentious material about a living person should be removed immediately, I have been censored from making any edits, especially when attempting to bring articles in line with Wikipedia policy. I presume it would be unanimous to state that Kerr was not a public figure.
 * "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." As mentioned before Kerr's Article 2 and 8 rights under the ECHR apply, the rights are enforceable on private individuals and businesses (see Max Mosley case where he successfully argued tabloids breached his article 8 rights).
 * This article has been sensationalised by included copious amounts of material which have zero relevance on the subjects notability (they are either about other people, or events which the subject has had no involvement in).
 * There remains many unsourced (and by default not referenced) allegations within the article such as stating the Inner Council members of the UDA. Zoidberg262 (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ with you on these counts. The article is well-written and focuses on Kerr, using reliable sources. And as he was (which is backed up by more than one source) the South Belfast UDA brigadier and an Inner Council member, that makes him "slightly" more powerful than an anonymous UDA foot soldier; that he was one of the leading figures at Drumcree and not just a casual face in the crowd, has also been referenced. The author of this page has used multiple sources backing the fact that he was a co-founder of the LVF which is why he and Wright were threatened with execution from the UVF Brigade Staff. No other people receieved such threats. Finally you have offered no evidence showing that Mr.Kerr's life would be put in jeopardy by the existance of this biographical article, bearing in mind that all the dogs in the streets of Belfast and Portadown know the history of Alex Kerr and a Wikipedia biographical article is no more hazardous to his health than the numerous books and articles which have been written about his life as a high-ranking UDA member and LVF co-founder.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether or not he was a brigadier does not necessarily in itself make him notable enough. It would be highly wrong to describe him as a 'leading figure at Drumcree' as there is no mention of him either being in the Orange Order or attending meetings with senior politicians or attending Downing Street in relation to Drumcree.  The only mention is an allegation that he drove a digger, which is only supported by one source, hardly a noteworthy event in any case.  It would also be wrong to maintain that he 'co-founded' the LVF when the source quite clearly mentioning Kerr only twice and not categorically stating he co-founded the LVF.  It is a tabloid article and does not meet Wikipedia criteria.  As stated in Wikipedia policy I do not have to prove anything it is for the editors who added the content to support their position and provide evidence.  Regardless of 'dogs on the street' libellous material is still libellous material. It is hazardous to his life and wellbeing if it is factually incorrect, supported by unreliable sources (if even supported by any sources). And Wikipedia policy is to remove immediately anything that is contentious in relation to living people biographies. Zoidberg262 (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability established with coverage in reliable sources Mo ainm  ~Talk  19:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The 'reliable sources' fundamentally lack a Depth of Coverage - example: The co-founder issue of the LVF he is mentioned only twice, I am intrigued how it could be argued this is sufficient depth of coverage. Zoidberg262 (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As previously stated the coverage in these 'reliable sources' merely mention the subject as opposed to being primarily written in relation to him. Also, what notable events are there in relation to the subject? Mayors and the like are widely mentioned and covered in reliable sources but does not necessarily or automatically lead to notability.  Wikipedia policies need to be followed.  Wikipedia policy is to remove immediately anything that is contentious in relation to living people biographies.  Repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.  I do not understand why these issues are not being adequately addressed, just ignored.  Zoidberg262 (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of note or notice; remarkable" Zoidberg262 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]
 * Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
 * "Editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." This article clearly accuses the subject of crimes. No reference to any convictions is mentioned. Zoidberg262 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as no evidence of notability - This AFD deserves nuking too! - knock it off with the constant comments, You've said Delete and your reason you don't need to carry on down that path!. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems to be a key leader of the UDA and apparently figures in the book by Henry McDonald and Jim Cusack, UDA – Inside the Heart of Loyalist Terror. (Penguin Ireland. ISBN 978-1844880201), based upon THIS web source derived from that work, which indicates that he was for a time the leader of the largest fraction of that group. GNG pass, in all likelihood. Carrite (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've taken the WP:BOLD move and collapsed most of the stuff up above - I appreciate everyone's entitled to there opinions but Zoidberg262 had addressed every single comment here and it's taking up alot of this page, and it's not really needed nor helpful, He nominated the article then proceeded to !vote Delete anyway - That's more than enough Delete-wise. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:45, 24 February 2015 (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.