Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)


 * 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. Most of the reasons for retention here seem to be more explicit and outweigh the reasons for deletion here. MuZemike 20:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Per BIO1E. This IRA volunteer is only notable for one, mostly non-notable, event. As WP:N states, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This event was not significant. He was not involved in any other IRA actions, and was not notable in any other aspect of his life. The event is adequately covered at Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions. Stu  ’Bout ye!  10:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: significant coverage by both national Newspapers Books    and international news media such as the BBC. This article was also merged here, with O'Brien article being cited as notable.-- Domer48 'fenian'  11:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, the event wasn't notable, and neither was the volunteer who carried it out. The previous merge discussion does not confirm O'Brien's notability. The extra sources you are providing support the event's notability, not O'Brien's. And even then I don't think they provide sufficient evidence to prove that the event deserves an article. If O'Brien had carried out multiple IRA actions, then yes he should have an article. See Gerry O'Callaghan, Eugene Kelly and Declan Arthurs for other volunteers only notable for one event. The outcome of Articles for deletion/Declan Arthurs (2nd nomination) was to merge these three articles to Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade, which has still to be done. Stu   ’Bout ye!  11:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Notable enough to be in a number of books on the conflict. -- Domer48 'fenian'  12:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Simply being mentioned in a book does not confer notability. He gets a passing mention in each of the book sources, and the event is also barely covered. Stu   ’Bout ye!  12:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Domer in that there was a lot of news coverage on O'Brien at the time of the event, and the event itself also achieved much attention from the media. In my opinion, notability has been established, therefore the article should not be deleted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't honestly see how notability has been established. The event might pass in terms of nobability. (but I feel is covered sufficiently at Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions and List of terrorist incidents in London} The notability policy for biographies states: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The coverage is not significant. In each source, it's pretty much just his name that's mentioned. In others his name and where he was from. Tírghrá gives detail about his background, but playing for your local GAA team is not notable. Stu   ’Bout ye!  13:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Passing mentions only, a clear BLP1E case. The event is what is notable if anything, and as established, that is more than adequately covered in other articles and doesn't warrant a standalone article. (although I note Aldwych bus bombing is a redlink which should probably be a redirect). Delete, and then redirect and salt Edward O'Brien (Aldwych bus bomber) as a valid search term and dab entry. MickMacNee (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. -- Domer48 'fenian'  13:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Books which are citable.


 * The Troubles: Ireland's ordeal, 1966-1996, and the Search for Peace by Tim Pat Coogan
 * IRA Man: Talking with the Rebels‎ by Douglass McFerran
 * The Irish War: The Hidden Conflict Between the IRA and British Intelligence‎ by Tony Geraghty
 * Armed struggle: The History of the IRA‎ by Richard English
 * The Provisional IRA in England: The Bombing Campaign, 1973-1997‎  by Gary McGladdery
 * The Northern Ireland Peace Process, 1993-1996: a Chronology‎ by Paul Bew and Gordon Gillespie
 * The politics of Illusion: a Political History of the IRA‎ by Henry Patterson
 * IRA, The Bombs and The Bullets: a History of Deadly Ingenuity‎ by A. R. Oppenheimer
 * The World in Conflict: Contemporary Warfare Described and Analysed by ‎ John Laffin
 * Comment He hasn't, most sources state his name and nothing more. That isn't significant. Stu   ’Bout ye!  14:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This story includes reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject, a condition of WP:N. There are also additional sources out there that I found with a very quick search, such as here, here and here. I agree that this article is bordering on WP:ONEEVENT, but when an article is on the borderline like that, I tend to ask myself this question: Is Wikipedia better off, or worse off, for having this article? In this case, I think it's better off. There is reason to believe that this article has room to grow and expand in the future (because there are other sources out there), and if someone wants to read about Edward O'Brien, I saw why not? This is a comprehensive, paperless encyclopedia. As long as it's well-sourced and verifiable, what's the harm in having it? — [[User:Hunter Kahn| Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  14:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that what the existence of this biography asserts is that non-notbale dead IRA members are notable, the harm it does to Wikipedia's neutral stance is, or should be, pretty obvious. If you think this is a borderline case of ONEEVENT, the correct course of action is, per that policy, a rename to Aldwych bus bombing and removal of extraneous content. While the presence of some sources doesn't make your argument a true case of WP:NOHARM, it comes pretty close. I personally cannot yet see what the new material is that you propose can be added to the article from these sources that it doesn't already contain. MickMacNee (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The fact that sources exist does not automatically mean a subject deserves an article. When you examine the sources provided, including the three you have mentioned, none establish his notability. They only mention his name as the bomber. The sources may support the creation of an article on the event, they do not support the keeping of this biographical article. Only a possible deletion review of 1996 West End Bus Bombing. I see no material from which the article could be expanded from either. All of the sources are very basic, and there is no evidence that he did anything else notable. This is not bordering on ONEEVENT, it's a clear example of it. As per that policy, "cover the event, not the person". Stu   ’Bout ye!  14:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: When you examine the sources provided, including the three mentioned, they do establish his notability.-- Domer48 'fenian'  15:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is simply because you confuse passing mentions linked inextricably with the event, with significant coverage of the person himself. Not every dead IRA member is separately notable, yet understandably, there will be mentions of of them all out there in one place or another, for obvious reasons. If any of these sources hailed O'Brien's accidental death as a turning point in the Troubles (rather than just the third attack since the restart), or cite him as the tactical genius responsible for this new method of attack, then you might have a case. But no, it was a pretty unremarkable event in the grand scheme of The Troubles, he killed nobody but himself, and he did nothing of note in the rest of his life according to sources, hence, he is an open and shut BLP1E case, and the material is easily covered elsewhere in other articles. I really hope that we don't have to establish some sort of notability guideline just for IRA members for people to see sense in this area, but it is pretty clear O'Brien doesn't meet WP:PERPETRATOR or WP:MILPEOPLE. MickMacNee (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has reliable sources which establish notability and as stated by Hunter Kahn above more reliable sources are available with a quick google search, BigDunc  15:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the fact that sources exist that provide more than incidental coverage does mean that the subject presumably is notable.  Incidental coverage would be the mere inclusion in a series of deaths. If he was covered individually,  with reference to what he did, he is notable. People are necessarily linked with events, or the people wouldn't be notable. Nobody is notable for the biographical details of their life. "unremarkable in the grand scheme of (whatever)" is a matter of opinion. If we need a more specific guideline, I have a simple one: every suicide bomber is notable.  Then we could write the articles and stop the arguing--if onlys ome of them are, we'll argue each of them indefinitely, and it'sd a total waste of time and effort.     DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgetting the fact that "every suicide bomber is notable" (for their own biography), is not a proposal that would pass in a million years, and that BLP1E flatly contradicts you with regard to automatic articles for 1 event people, O'Brien wasn't even a suicide bomber. The sources only knew his name to be able to include it in passing, because once he screwed up the mission, the IRA had no reason not to release it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources show he is considered historically significant, and that passes BIO.  I also suggest what I think would be a simpler way to decide these, and my experience is that eventually the community is tending to go to clear distinctions.  DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG, by that rationale every paramilitary in the conflict would qualify for an article. More than that, most of the people who died in the Troubles would be eligable as well, just because their name's are mentioned in a few news sources and books? This is all that is mentioned of O'Brien in the sources - his name and in some cases where he is from. No source provided shows that he is historically significant, just that he died. That's it. So I'm struggling to understand your rationale. Stu   ’Bout ye!  17:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources show that, shockingly, a bomb exploding on a bus was a significant event worthy of recording. If you want to argue anything different DGG, you are going top have to start coming up with some specific reasoning, because it is pretty easy to refute 'they do' arguments, by simply saying, 'they don't'. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * O'Brien passes BIO, it is sourced with reliable sources, more reliable sources are available, now are you going to harrang every editor who doesn't agree with deletion, what about the ridiculous per nom below are you pair going to ask GD to expand. BigDunc  17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, WP:PERNOM: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom".". Secondly, who is haranguing who here? I point out the very reasonable point that 'keep, sourced' or 'passes BIO' is not very good argument in an Afd, which is all perfectly normal and expected, and you jump in with an allegation, but not an answer or expansion of your own. Now, just like HK, if you think these extra sources add anything to the article, then feel free to detail exactly what they add that is not already covered, and/or how that makes this person anymore notable. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It also says Where reasonable counter-arguments to the nomination have been raised in the discussion, you may wish to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshalling your own evidence. BigDunc  19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked the history of this article (which I should've earlier) & it's over 2-yrs old. I try to make it a point, not to seek deletion of articles over a year old. I mistakenly thought this article was created recently. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"The issue about BLP1E is that, even for people famous for one event, there exists reliable biographical material on those people outside of that event. If a person becomes famous for a single event, and then, as a result of that event, reliable extensive biographies are done of the person some time later, then there is extensive source material about the person. There is a difference between that and a person whose ONLY extensive coverage is the direct press coverage of the event itself. Essentially, once a person has been covered in a reliable source as a person of their own right, BLP1E no longer applies. However, if ALL of the coverage of a person is part of the coverage of the event, and that only, THAT is the type of coverage that BLP1E is meant to stop. If a person makes the news for a single event, and then receives no further coverage beyond that event, then BLP1E applies... If the single event leads to coverage of that person's life outside of the event BLP1E does not apply."
 * Comment. I've already voted, but I did a quick Lexis Nexis search and found some additional sources that I think further demonstrate O'Brien's notability. (I've placed them in my userspace for now.) Some of these stories present Edward O'Brien in an interesting context. For example, how he showed little signs of political or social ideology, and that his involvement with the IRA reflect the types of people that group was seeking to recruit at this time. (If I'm reading these correctly; I've only had the chance to skim through them so far...) I might try to work some of this information in the article in the next few days if time permits. Also, please note that I came up with these after only a few minutes of searching, so I'm sure there are still other sources out there... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There are some interesting sources there Kahn. They tell us nothing new about O'Brien's life, but the commentary on his involvement in the republican movement might sway me. (Never heard of Lexis, is it a paid subscription site?) I still think BIO1E applies, he still was only involved in one minor event of the Troubles, which received little press attention compared to others. As per BIO1E, "cover the event, not the person". I'm going to directly quote Jayron32 from a Village Pump discussion last year:
 * 1E absolutely applies here. Have "reliable extensive biographies" been written about O'Brien? Definitely not. I'd be willing to look at a recreation of an article on the event, but he fails WP:N, and more specifically 1E. Stu   ’Bout ye!  09:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, and I wouldn't be opposed to merging this information to an article like Aldwych Bus Bombing or some other title. That would also allow for some additional detail about the event itself that wouldn't be appropriate for a biography article, but it would also still allow us to include that context about his involvement with the Republican movement and what it says about their recruiting tactics... (And yes, Lexis is a paid subscription service. I have limited access to it from work.) —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  22:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I fail to see how BIO1E doesn't apply in this case. The coverage is only in relation to the incident. I do not believe that the source for the biographical information can be considered an independent reliable source, which leaves even less for the article to go on. Quantpole (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just another article on WP about a dead Provisional IRA member. Can't see how it meets notability requirements. A few single mentions of his name in passing don't pass muster. Mooretwin (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Aldwych Bus Bombing Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep; this is a blatantly politically motivated AfD. A bus bombing in London "not significant"? It got front page coverage for days. (Stu, I would have thought you'd know better than to open up a whole new arena for troubles-related disputes - now we'll get Republican editors tagging every article on any minor Unionist for deletion). Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You just said it yourself - the bombing was significant. But is O'Brien? Read the discussion. As for front page news for days, take a look at WP:EVENT. MickMacNee (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. "blatantly politically motivated AfD". Sarah, please explain that. I've a lot of respect for you, I hope I'm not about to lose it. Are you suggesting that I nominated the article because the subject is a republican? This would seem to be a bit contradictory then. I'm interested in improving notable articles, and nothing else. If there are non-notable unionist bios out there, then point me in the right direction and I'll nominate them myself. You say a "bus bombing in London not significant"? Maybe it is, that remains to be seen. What's certain is that O'Brien himself is not notable. I hate to repeat myself, but this article is a clear example of a biography failing BIO1E. It's blindingly obvious. In these cases "cover the event, not the person" - per the policy. Stu   ’Bout ye!  23:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Stu, I do suspect bias which isn't to say I don't have a lot of time for you. I think you know what I am saying here; this Afd is potentially opening up a "new front" in the troubles-related row. I'm nonplussed (in so far as I can be) that you consider there is some doubt about the significance of the bombing. "cover the event, not the person"? So, why didn't you suggest a merge rather than a deletion? Sarah777 (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah, I'm all for compromise to reduce tensions, but not at the expense of the encyclopedia. This isn't opening a "new front", if certain editors feel that it is, then the project would be better off without them. AFDs should be considered on the facts, nothing else. If I was to assume bad faith, I would suspect that some people are voting keep here simply because the subject is a republican. So am I the one who should be accused of bias? I haven't proposed a redirect/merge to an event article as I'm not 100% sure it would qualify as notable either. I remain to be convinced either way, but if we found an event article to be worthy of inclusion, I'd of course be willing to help develop and improve it. Stu   ’Bout ye!  10:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have thought his actions would automatically make him notable. All 911 hijackers have their own article because they were notable for their actions. Doesn't the same apply here? Jack forbes (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Killed 2,976 versus killed 0 ? Not even comparable. If he is automatically notable for simply being a dead terrorist, as if BLP1E doesn't exist, then we need to write that notability guideline, because it doesn't exist right now. MickMacNee (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What about Mark David Chapman? He has his own article, even though he is only known for one single event. Ditto for John Hinckley, Jr and Mehmet Ali Agca.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the difference is the amount of press/media attention that each received. O'Brien - hardly any. A few articles mention his basic background details but that's about it really. Compare this to Chapman for example, who has received widespread and extensive attention regarding the actual murder, and his life prior to and after the murder. He's been portrayed in three films, been interviewed by People magazine etc. It is these differences which make Chapman pass BIO1E, and O'Brien fail. Stu   ’Bout ye!  09:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine but, how many 911 hijackers were interviewed? Well, none, they were all dead of course. How much do we know of them individually, well, almost nothing. Also, whether or not thousands or none died surely your criteria for an article on them should be the same for this nomination. Don't you think by that criteria they should be merged into the main article? We shouldn't have a rule and use it sparingly. Jack forbes (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, do you mean because there are articles on the 911 hijackers there should be an article on O'Brien? I take your point. Admittedly I haven't read the hijacker articles, but if as little has been written about them as O'Brien, then they would fail also fail BIO1E and should be redirected. But good luck trying that! Stu   ’Bout ye!  15:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah would you listen to yourself! Get a bit of cop on will yeh. Now the subject is notable enough for an article, so get over it. -- Domer48 'fenian'  10:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's some impressive reasoning there Domer. Stu  ’Bout ye!  10:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * When judged against the purile jibberish you are spouting I agree it would seem impressive reasoning. -- Domer48 'fenian'  13:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Domer, your last few comments haven't exactly been constructive or aimed at advancing the discussion. So why make them? Stu   ’Bout ye!  15:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to cover the event. I've quickly scanned all the references and they all appear to identify O'Brien with the bus bombing.  The bus bombing was notable, but I believe O'Brien is only notable because of that event and not for any other reason.  Therefore, I can understand why this article exists, given that there's no article about the bus bombing, but I believe it should be the other way around.  --HighKing (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be acceptable, move the article from the 'person' to the related 'event'. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I see nothing here that makes the subject notable for anything other than the nature of his death, which is not in of itself enough for Wikipedia. I do however agree with those above that an article on the event itself would be appropriate into which much of this material could be merged.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I've found some newspaper sources that deal with O'Brien's background in reasonable detail. Will do some more work and expand the article in the next 24 hours or so. 2 lines of K  303  15:06, 17 December 2009 (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.