Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cormac Devlin


 * 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 delete. - strength of arguments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Cormac Devlin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable local politician. Devlin holds a position as a county councillor, with no history of ever having held any more significant office. As he is seeking re-election in 2016, the article reads largely like a campaign ad. Many news stories cited, but the amount to local coverage or insignificant mentions. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep Accept while municipal politicians do not generally pass WP:POLITICIAN, there is a place reserved on Wikipedia for local figures who have attracted significant media coverage beyond their own home town or district. A number of media articles at national level concerning the subject have now been linked.

The page now cites 16 articles published in the national press, including several where the subject is the main individual featured / quoted, examples Irish Independent, Sunday Times and Irish Times. The page cites an interview with the national television broadcaster, RTE. The page also cites multiple articles in the regional press where the subject is featured. This meets criterion as regards “significant coverage by reliable sources, independent of the subject”. On this basis the article should be removed from Aft category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirinus X (talk • contribs) 22:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to note that User:Quirinus X is the creator of this article. Snappy (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, articles where the topic is merely quoted as giving a soundbite in coverage of something else does not contribute to getting the subject over WP:GNG — so the last of those three links doesn't count for anything at all. And both of the other two are covering him specifically in the context of his candidacy itself — but media have a public service obligation to cover elections happening in their coverage area, so such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE. To prove that he satisfies "local figures who have attracted significant media coverage", you would need to rely on sources that were specifically covering his work on the county council as a thing in its own right — coverage of his reelection effort does not, in and of itself, contribute to notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN, article clearly created to promote his candidacy in the next general election. As a local councillor, he had received any national coverage relating to or about him, other that passing mentions. Btw, I live in the county council area that he represents and I've never heard of him! Snappy (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The subject has received significant national coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, further examples not cited in article: |Irish Independent | Herald | Irish Times | Irish Independent A Google news search returns 692 | different links Subject exceeds WP:GNG imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirinus X (talk • contribs) 04:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not, as a rule, extend notability under WP:NPOL to most local city or county councillors — while we do have some leeway to consider exceptional cases where a person, for either good or bad reasons, becomes significantly more notable than the norm for that role, nothing that's been written or sourced in this article satisfies that condition. The entire thing is just "generic county councillor doing generic county councillor things", edging into "campaign brochure explanations of his opinions on local issues", and that's not the kind of article that we allow a local political figure to keep. Further, as near as I can tell the sourcing (both the stuff in the article and the stuff Quirinus X is offering here) is almost entirely of the primary, non-substantive "namechecking his existence in the process of failing to be about him per se", and/or "routine coverage of his reelection campaign itself" varieties — none of which can contribute anything toward whether or not a county councillor has the extra level of notability needed to clear the bar. So no, I'm not seeing any reason why he's more notable than any of his other colleagues who don't have articles. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he ever seeks higher office. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Devlin has attracted more coverage than colleague Kate Feeney or John Bailey who have articles. Dun Laoghaire is high profile council in Ireland attracting more interest than others. On the basis of coverage and precedents regarding similar articles I think he passes the test for Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.216.237.98 (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * — 31.216.237.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Aha, the always strange anon Keep !vote, quack quack! See Other stuff exists. Snappy (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, Feeney's article has been put up for deletion in the past, and landed at "no consensus" — and the "keep" side in her case didn't rest on her county council seat itself, but on her having been involved in an internal party dispute which spilled over into purportedly causing a leadership crisis in the entire national party. I still don't agree that she actually clears the bar — the actual national significance of the purported leadership crisis seemed severely overstated, since the coverage was over in three days flat and nobody actually lost their job — but a case was presented that she should be considered more notable than the norm for a county councillor. And Bailey's article also landed at "no consensus" when deletion was attempted, although the "keep" side in that instance made an even weaker case than Feeney's did (it boiled down to "keep because county council is the highest level of political office in the country short of a TD, so it's equivalent to a provincial or state legislature elsewhere" — the first part of that may be true, but the second doesn't automatically follow from that.) But most importantly, the fact that they were both closed as "no consensus", rather than clean keeps, means that they can both be renominated for another deletion discussion absolutely anytime somebody decides to actually take it on — it does not mean that the articles have been declared "safe", or that notability has been extended to county councillors in general. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion to reach a clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, as far as I can tell that is a WP:MILL local politician.
 * This being said, up there said newspapers have a obligation to report the electoral campaign (and hence, such reporting is routine); can someone clarify? Where I live, electoral rules impose that TV and radio speaking time be fairly attributed to candidates, but nothing of the sort for newspapers - based on the premise that while the number of broadcast frequencies are limited, paper is not. Of course, even if some coverage is mandatory, any coverage beyond that is no longer routine. Tigraan (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're misquoting me a bit — I didn't say "newspapers", I said media in general. Newspapers in most countries, as far as I know, aren't regulated by a licensing authority, such that there are any legal conditions of license on their being able to operate at all — but there are still market conditions, whereby a newspaper that people don't consider to be trustworthy isn't going to survive because the readers will stop buying it. So candidates do still get newspaper coverage — it's a moral obligation rather than a basic condition of license in their case, but it's still a matter of public service to their audience. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misquote, my brain had a short circuit because you were discussing newspapers even though you wrote "media" in your analysis.
 * Although I agree that electoral campaigns lend themselves to routine coverage just as violent murders, I disagree with your analysis that there is an "obligation" on the papers in the sense you write above. I could see the paper's editor demanding the electoral campaign be covered because he personally feels the civic duty to do so. But the market or moral obligation to print something that readers find interesting is not really a bias; if we rely on newspapers to establish notability it is precisely on the grounds that journalists are competent to decide what is notable and what is not (with some caveats of course). TR;DR: WP:ROUTINE applies, but no more to electoral campaigns that to other things. Tigraan (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough media coverage to establish notability. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain... Do you disagree with Bercat's "routine" dismissal above, or did you find another source? Tigraan (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, on the basis that WP:POLITICIAN is designed to keep out articles about run-of-the-mill local politicians with only fleeting, election-related news coverage. Devlin is known for nothing other than being a local councillor. Sionk (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete far below the level of passing notability for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, Nom misunderstood or misstated. Devlin is not running for "reelection" to his city council seat. He is a serous contender for the  Fianna Fáil nomination for parliament.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Being an as yet unelected candidate in a future election isn't a notability freebie either, so that still doesn't boost his notability unless and until he wins a seat. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I do understand that User:Quirinus X has COI and wrote the article, nevertheless, I read the articles he cites above, and these 2 Irish Independent, Sunday Times made me look further.  He is being flagged  by major papers as a serious threat to the nomination of  former cabinet minister Mary Hanafin.  It's a hot race, and while I won't copy every recent article that comes up on a news search, it is getting intensive coverage (even silly coverage when both Devlin and Hanafin entered a charity foot race ,).  There is an intensity of serious coverage rare in a party primary.  I think the article should be kept; deletion can reconsidered after he either loses or wins the nomination and, if he wins that, the election.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is an incorrect reversal of WP:TOOSOON. Since notability is not temporary, if the current coverage is considered a proof that he is notable then the article should be kept no matter the electoral results. Conversely, if his notability depends of the results, then it should be deleted without prejudice against recreation once the results are up.
 * This being said, if the coverage is indeed more than the usual, it ought to be taken into account. Tigraan (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This being said, if the coverage is "intensive" about him (beyond routine election coverage) then at least a few articles need to be cited here. Source 1 above only has the briefest mention and makes no claim at all that Devlin is a "serious threat". Sionk (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep even the briefest google search brings up a lots of national coverage. E.M.Gregory is correct the intensity of the coverage is very rare. If Devlin was not notable prior to this he is now. Local politicians simply don't usually get national coverage in Ireland - the Sunday Times is the Sunday paper of record in the UK and Ireland, and there's a large piece on him there. That should settle the matter. Examples of non-routine national coverage Examples of intense interest (smear campaign, leaked minutes, involvement of party leader)  Reggiegal (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, coverage presented here is routine stuff for any minor politician seeking re-election to a higher office. Being a dial-a-quote doesn't give any particular notability.  If he gets into the Oireachtas, then by all means create an article, but that's still a decidedly chancy prospect for a politician with such a modest profile.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC).


 * WP should tread carefully here. Seat in the Oireachtas\national parliament for which Devlin is running is "hotly contested" (today's Independent ) but note that the other contestants for this seat within the Fianna Fail party include not only former Minister Mary Hanafin, but a city council member similar to Devlin in early career status who has an uncontested WP page Kate Feeney.  WP should be very careful about deleting one candidate and keeping another during hotly contested races.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair E.M.Gregory I think as Snappy (talk) noted the other candidate was a "no consensus". But you make excellent points about this primary contest attracting lots of national media attention. There were four articles over the last 24 hours alone. As author (discount it as you will), I'd argue Devlin meets criteria for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Bearcat (talk) has reasonably argued that some of coverage is routine, and in some instances that is correct, however articles, like for example, his Young Blood feature in |Phoenix Magazine in 2009 are not routine, the editor of the longest running political magazine in Ireland made a decision to feature him (they only feature 3 or 4 councillors per year). Some of the other articles, such as those cited by Reggiegal (talk) go well beyond what might be argued is routine -  . On this basis I believe the article meets the criterion, but obviously it's a matter for the closing admin to decide and I'll accept whatever decision they make. Thanks everyone for you comments and interest in the issue :) Quirinus X (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't Wikipedia's job to give "equal time" on here to all candidates in an election — our job is to have articles about people, be they incumbents or candidates, who satisfy one of our inclusion rules, and to not have articles about people who don't. This does not compromise the electoral process — there have been many, many elections throughout the 15 years of Wikipedia's existence which were won by candidates who did not already have Wikipedia articles, quite often by defeating incumbents and/or notable-for-other-reasons candidates who did have articles. (The textbook example I always point to is the Calgary municipal election, 2010, in which a mayoral candidate who did not have a Wikipedia article yet won the election over two more "established" challengers, who did have Wikipedia articles as they already satisfied some other Wikipedia notability criteria for reasons independent of their candidacies.) We do not extend "temporary notability" on "equal time for all candidates" grounds to a person who does not already satisfy NPOL — either sufficient notability was already there before the person became a candidate, or it does not exist until they're declared the winner. It's not our responsibility to compromise or water down our inclusion criteria for politicians so that unelected candidates for a notable office can use Wikipedia as a campaign tool. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * People really should 'put up or shut up' (to put it crudely) about this so called 'non-routine' coverage about Devlin. From what I can see, the coverage above is about the election (largely concentrating on Mary Hanafin the most well-known contender) with brief mentions of Devlin as one of the participants. Is Devlin behind the dirty tricks? I don't see this either. The coverage could certainly be used to support an article about the election, but the biographical (or otherwise) detail of Devlin isn't there (and he's not the subject of these articles at all). The most interesting claim is the Young Blood feature in The Phoenix, but we don't know the details of it (it's hidden behind a paywall). Find more stuff like that and I may (possibly) be persuaded to change my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate the Phoenix | Young Blood feature on Devlin is behind a pay wall, but do articles need need to be freely available? The Sunday Times, Financial Times and many other serious publications operate a pay-wall, surely the existence of the piece should be sufficient? But maybe another WP contributor with access might take a look? There is more Phoenix stuff but if it can't be accessed is there any point in citing it? The Phoenix interest at the time stemmed from Devlin being very young (he was the youngest individual ever elected to Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Council) and his success despite his age in overcoming attempts by Hanafin (then a Senior Minister) to replace him in 2004 and 2009. The background provides context to the current race. Hence the Irish media interest. Sionk you asked asked E.M.Gregory for evidence about Devlin posing a treat to Hanafin, if it helps these two articles are examples of the views of various national political correspondents: | Mark O'Regan, Irish Independent, | Niall O'Connor, Irish Independent. As regards non-campaign coverage, Devlin has had a significant amount relating to his work as a public representative, Enos733 deleted much of it when he refocused the article on 28th May. But some examples of the coverage are: | Dublin Gazette Newspaper, Front Page, | Herald| Dublin People, Front Page there's loads more. Quirinus X (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"There has been much coverage of the Hanafi n-Feeney rivalry as they both struggle for the general election nomination in Dún Laoghaire. But it is Cormac Devlin that Hanafi n should really worry about as the 34-year-old has been a Dún Laoghaire councillor for eleven years and he knows the local party membership inside out. Devlin is fond of reminding members that while Hanafi n was AWOL in cabinet duties, he minded the shop in her absence. Hanafi n, Feeney and Cllr Jennifer Cuffe each have a fraction of Devlin’s vote in the local party and the debate has now switched from who will win at convention to whether HQ will add a second candidate when Devlin is selected. "Devlin’s supporters are apoplectic at the notion of adding Hanafi n to the ticket and point to the party’s Dublin wide polls taken before the Euro elections which showed that Hanafi n was transfer repellent. And most Dublin members believe that if HQ and Martin bring back former cabinet member, Hanafi n, in a blaze of publicity, then they ought also to select John O’Donoghue down in Kerry and Brian Cowen in Laois."E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC) FIANNA FAIL tyro Cormac Devlin swept to victory in the Dun Laoghaire ward of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown (DL-R) council in 2004, but he faces an altogether stiffer test this June. Apart from the generally uphill battle for most FF councillors, he’s got some serious opposition from his own running mate – Mary Hanafin’s personal assistant in the constituency, Peter O’Brien, behind whom serious resources and energy have been thrown. With FG likely to take two seats and Richard Boyd Barrett ready to capitalise on a strong election performance, this leaves Devlin and O’Brien scrapping for the one FF seat likely to be on offer.
 * User:Quirinus X What is needed are profiles of the man, analysis of his career, articles that show that his career is is some way extraordinary; not coverage of what seem to be his activities as a member of the city council expressing opinions on local issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Putting up as requested, This from the MAY 8, 2015  issue of The Phoenix:
 * Trying to access that 2009 article in "The Phoenix". No success at this point, although one search did turn up a 2004 piece in the Examiner highlighting Devlin, "http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2004/0308/ireland/party-eager-to-show-off-its-young-blood-939032107.html" E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Text of The Phoenix Young Blood feature on Devlin, 8 May 2009 as requested by User:E.M.Gregory & User:Sionk

The Dun Laoghaire ward of DL-R is opposition country, with both FG and Labour enjoying the strongest support there. After all, Labour leader Eamon Gilmore was a councillor in the ward until the dual mandate was abolished and the party’s current councillor is the long-standing Jane Dillon Byrne. But it’s Fine Gael that really dominates Dun Laoghaire, and in recent times two princes of the party’s royalty have held council seats. In 1999, blueshirt senator Liam Cosgrave junior (son of Liam snr and grandson of WT) was a councillor, while one of FG’s three seats is Tom O’Higgins, one of the scions of the O’Higgins clan. It was into this political bearpit that young Devlin – just 23 at the time – threw himself after sitting councillor Betty Coffey decided not to go forward again. Having secured a nomination at convention alongside Brendan Kiely (lately of the Forum for Europe) and Eimear McAuliffe, one of Mary Hanafin’s pals, Devlin surprised them all by getting elected just behind poll topper John Bailey of FG and collecting 1,776 first preference votes.

Devlin is one of the young turks in Dun Laoghaire Fianna Fail, and was a member of Ogra in the mid-1990s at the tender age of 16, where he got pally with Luke Martin. In 1999, when Martin was head of Ogra in Dun Laoghaire, they all got into a spot of bother when Martin and his vice president, Stephen O’Connor, fired out an angry press release directed at Bertie Ahern over his u-turn on NATO’s Partnership for Peace, which resulted in Martin getting hauled over the coals by HQ for his impertinence. But Devlin’s friendship with Martin isn’t limited to just politics, they are also partners in two pub companies, Osiris Bars and Atlantis Concordia. Unfortunately, Atlantis Concordia, through which Devlin, Martin, barrister Morgan Shelley and businessman Ronan Callan owned Lime Cafe Bar, recently went toes up, while Osiris has only recently been incorporated and will certainly find it difficult in the current climate.

Devlin will be hoping the same fate does not befall his election campaign. And as tough as the 2004 election was, things will be much tougher for Devlin this time around. For starters, there is likely to be just one seat available for Fianna Fail again this time, which makes it all the more unfortunate for Devlin that FF have thrown such weight behind O’Brien. While strategically a weaker second candidate can often enhance a stronger candidate’s chances by ensuring a solid number of transfers, two equally strong (or equally weak) candidates could rob each other of necessary votes and leave them both off the pace. Nevertheless, O’Brien – who is a long-time functionary of minister for social and family affairs Mary Hanafin and who is currently her personal assistant in the Dun Laoghaire general election constituency – is getting plenty of support from Hanafin, in terms of resources and canvassing. Hanafin hasn’t yet gone out with Devlin.

Still, young Cormac will be hoping that Hanafin’s support will be doing O’Brien more harm than good. Hanafin’s demotion to social and family affairs means that she is now one of the public faces of some of the harshest cuts in social welfare the country has seen. While her presence on the doorstep would have been a boon to O’Brien in any other election, in 2009 it might end up serving as a rather large lightning rod on the doorsteps. Worse have been recent media reports that Hanafin had been using Oireachtas resources – envelopes and headed note-paper – to write to constituents urging them to drop in on O’Brien’s campaign launch. With the abuse by Oireachtas members of such parliamentary privileges as free postage, this was a blunder.

Yet another worry for Devlin will be the recent harmony in Fine Gael after a nasty bout of infighting, caused by the entry of Naja Regan – daughter of FG senator Eugene – into the fray. Regan wanted a shot at running in the locals for FG (see The Phoenix, 27/2/09). The prospect terrified the three sitting FGers, Bailey, Mary Mitchell O’Connor and Tom O’Higgins, who fired off a letter to HQ demanding that they, and they only, be ratified (which, HQ were told by Tom’s brother Kevin, the party’s solicitor, was perfectly legal). However, when HQ did just that at the selection convention, the Regans sprang into action, and they dragged the party to the High Court. Both Devlin and O’Brien will have been relishing the prospect of a prolonged legal spat within FG as the locals loomed, but the blueshirts came to an agreement by which Regan would agree to withdraw her challenge. In exchange for this, among other things, Naja was promised a co-option to any seat in the DL-R wards of Dun Laoghaire, Ballybrack and Blackrock when one arose, while Eugene was told he’d be selected for the substitutes’ list for the party’s Euro candidates after the next election. SCRAP Whether any of these promises are ever delivered remains to be seen (and already one is off the cards; the promise to place Naja on the now-defunct National Forum for Europe), but nevertheless Devlin is now faced with FG certainly taking two of the six seats on offer. John Bailey’s non-stop canvassing will ensure his re-election, while Mary Mitchell-O’Connor, though she switched allegiances from the PDs to FG in 2007, is well-known locally as a school principal as well as a councillor, which should see her take a seat. O’Higgins, despite his peerless lineage, has not been quite as hard working as his colleagues and will have to wait for the later counts. Depending on how well Bailey and Mitchell-O’Connor poll, he might slip in on transfers.

Although Labour are the second strongest party in the ward, they are inexplicably running three candidates. Sitting councillor Jane Dillon-Byrne has been on the council for decades, but her two running mates, Stephen Fitzpatrick andAngela Timmins, are virtually unknown and neither is likely to take a seat (in the last two elections, Dillon-Byrne has only slipped in on the last count thanks to transfers). Meanwhile, former Green councillor Kealin Ireland was replaced by Gene Feighery, whose record on planning and the presence of a handful of left-leaning candidates could boost her vote, though any backlash against Fianna Fáil might also affect the Greens. Fianna Fáil will almost certainly get one seat, but it is not clear whether Devlin, on the basis of his council work, or O’Brien, on the basis of Hanafin’s sponsorship, will snag a higher first preference tally." Quirinus X (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2015


 * 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.