Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerned Criminals Action Committee


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  08:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Concerned Criminals Action Committee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability not established, and is not even mentioned in the Martin Cahill article. It doesn't seem like it lasted long enough to matter in the grand scheme of Cahill's gang activities, as it was in and out in a year. The first source is a trivial mention in a book, and the rest of the article summarizes the other source poorly, so I'll bet that the article content doesn't really reflect the sources, thus WP:TNT applies, and it's not worth keeping. MSJapan (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete none of the sources i have seen devote any more than two sentences to the topic. Fails WP:GNG Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 13:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - We don't just throw WP:TNT around based on a hunch. Online sources are a bit difficult to find but Concerned Parents Against Drugs and Concerned Criminals Action Committee appears to have been a notable topic area back in the 1980s:, , . ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first source doesn't even mention CCAC, which is why I wish you would really stop just pasting URLs in and claiming notability is met, because you're clearly not reading the sources, and hoping that because you said keep, the article will be kept. In short, your first source doesn't mention CCAC, the second article about Martin Foley gives it two sentences, and the third is a simple namedrop in an article about a film about Martin Cahill.  Well, just because these guys were involved with it because they started it, it's a biographical detail for them, not a standalone article for CCAC.  Your bar for notability is well out of line with established policy. MSJapan (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The first source mentions Concerned Parents Against Drugs which I had created a redirect to this article for. ~Kvng (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So the first source does not cover this topic, I can't access the second one, and the third one falls short of significant coverage in my opinion, consisting of one very short paragraph about the topic (link for editors without highbeam acounts). WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, I fail to see how your sources satisfy that requirement, even if the second source is good. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Without changing the title, I have expanded the scope of the article to include Concerned Criminals Action Committee and Concerned Parents Against Drugs. Here are the relevant excerpts from the second source:
 * "Along with Cahill, Foley faced down Concerned Parents Against Drugs - which Cahill's gang claimed was wrongly accusing 'ordinary decent criminals' of drug dealing - by establishing the absurdly titled Concerned Criminals Action Committee."
 * "In 1984, when the Concerned Parents Against Drugs group wrongly blamed Foley and his associates of dealing drugs, Martin Cahill established the Concerned Criminal Action Committee. Led by Foley, it marched on the homes of members of the parents' group. Eventually a truce was called between the two groups, after Foley was sent to negotiate with the parents' group, which had been infiltrated by republican elements."
 * ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - per user Kvngs findings.BabbaQ (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, , are great sources and indicators of notability here. I think Kvngs finding should be enough to justify inclusion. we dont delete per poorly made articles.BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reposting the same three sources Kvng posted earlier (and which were already dealt with as trivial by two other editors) a second time does not suddenly make them "great sources and indicators of notability." MSJapan (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - THIS is an impressive source. And HERE is another book source. Not sure that this topic can ever get up to C-class, but that's not what we are assessing here. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2016 (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.