Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killings at Coolacrease


 * 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 to delete, default to keep.  Even after discounting several single purpose accounts, we do not have a consensus to delete. Any POV and sourcing problems the article might have can be remedied by editing, renaming or merging it, all of which do not require deletion. These problems (if any) do not appear to be so fundamental as to require outright deletion despite the lack of a consensus for deletion. If the TV programme is perceived to be more notable than the event itself, the article can be rewritten to focus on the programme.  Sandstein  08:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Killings at Coolacrease

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an unsalvageable mish-mish of an article, a pile of original research, synthesis and POV-pushing about an obscure incident near the end of the Irish War of Independence whose only claim to notability is that it was the subject of a controversial TV programme produced and broadcast late last year by RTÉ. I think that there are good grounds for believing that the TV program itself is notable &mdash; there is plenty of substantial coverage in reliable sources, including articles in most of Ireland's major national newspapers.

However, the article was created as an article about the historical event, and there are insufficient reliable secondary sources to support such an article. The sources available consist of two memoirs by people whose families were involved in different sides of the conflict, one transcript of any indymedia debate led by Pat Muldowney (of whom more anon), and a pile of primary sources published on indymedia. At no stage in the discussions on the article's talk pages has anyone offered any evidence that there exists any impartial, scholarly account of the events; all that we have is the pile of material generated by the protagonists, and suggestions that something more solid may be forthcoming in the future.

The existence of this article are completely bound up in the debate over the TV programme, and it is being used a battleground by at least one of the protagonists in that controversy. The programme provoked a heated debate in Ireland, not least from two individuals (Paddy Heaney and Pat Muldowney), who claimed that the program was biased, and lodged unsuccessful complaints with Ireland's Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Muldowney also engaged in the public debate in the press, and wrote extensively about the TV programme on indymedia, strongly opposing the programme and setting out what he believed was a more accurate presentation of the history.

So far so good; there's nothing at all wrong with anyone participating passionately in a public debate. However, the wikipedia problems began when began to summarise his views in a wikipedia article. It is to Muldowney's credit that he registered in his own name, but as a vocal protagonist in the public controversy, he had a clear conflict of interest and should have refrained from editing the article. Unfortunately, repeated requests for him to do so have been unsuccessful, and after the article was substantially revised by others he removed most of the additions.

Muldowney may not be the only editor here with an outside involvement with this issue. Other contributions, largely supporting Muldowney, have been made by, only one of whose 15 contributions is not to this article or its talk page. Yet another single-purpose account is, who has made substantial edits to the article but not participated in any discussions, and there is also. I don't think that I have ever seen so many single-purpose accounts at work on an article.

I tried myself to add some balance to the article, but apart from the difficulties involved in discussion with editors apparently uninterested in wikipedia policies, I eventually concluded that there not enough sources to allow an article on anything other than the TV programme.

As above, I think that there is a theoretical possibility that a properly-sourced article could be written on the TV program. However, the latest edits have removed nearly all coverage of the TV program, leaving this version, which is an appalling mishmash of original research and synthesis primarily written by an editor with a huge COI, and relying in large part on indymedia sources and on the accounts Alan Stanley and Paddy Heaney (neither of whom is a professional historian, both of whom is writing about their own relatives).

It may be that in future there will be sufficient published scholarship to allow a properly-sourced article to be written about the historical event, but as of now, there isn't. What we have here is a travesty of many wikipedia policies, and it should be deleted. If kept, it will continue to be abused as a vehicle for various POV-pushers with vested interests to promote the original research on which this article is founded. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.   — Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.   — Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No Deletion, No Gagging. I've checked through the article again to see if there is any valid reason for deletion. I just can't see it. The basic historical facts on which all sources agree are given and cited. Areas of disagreement are listed and appropriate sources for each side cited, without any indication of editorial preference that I can detect.
 * Strong Keep Wikipedia is not censored and the above is simply not a Reason for deletion. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. Did you read those reasons for deletion? If you read them, you'll see that the list there isn't intended to be exhaustive, and that it includes "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Now, re-read the nomination, and note the emphasis I have place in the lack of reliable sources, and the use of original research. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Professor Richard English says The details of the killings make this a particular ghastly episode even if someone was broadly sympathetic with IRA and republicanism. It would seem he was able to find reliable sources to back his claim - but then again he is only a professional historian and not an admin. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That link illustrates my point very nicely. The Daily Mirror article is useless as a historical source on the killings themselves, but contains several notable comments on the TV programme. It's one of dozens of references which could be used to write an article on the TV programme and the subsequent debate. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources cited are good. One of the main sources is the academic work of Philip McConway which is published by the highly regarded Offaly Historical and Archaeological Society, and is readable off their website. The cited work of Paddy Heaney is published by the same society and its affiliates.

The main sources for the opposing case are Alan Stanley's 2005 book (cited in the original article), and Eoghan Harris's October 9 2005 Sunday Independent article. Maybe the Harris article is a more WP-appropriate citation than Alan Stanley's book. But Harris's article is just a resumé of Stanley's book, and I think the latter should also be cited.

The list of citations in the article includes documents in the public domain (Public Records Office etc) which are selectively quoted in most discussions about the 1921 incidents. These sources are cited in the article without drawing any conclusions or implications from them – no analysis.

These sources have been placed in the public domain by the authority of two states – the Irish and British. It is reasonable to quote from them provided the quotes are accurate and balanced. One of the merits of the article was that, in effect, it quoted them in full (by means of hyperlinks) but without drawing conclusions from them. It is a mistake to remove those links, in my opinion.

There has been far too much ad hominem argument here. Knockanore (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Knockanore (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * ReplyKnockanore, one of the reason that new editors are cautioned against participating in deletions debates is that new editors lack familiarity with the policies and guidelines on which such decisions are made. Please read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. What a wikipedia article needs is reliable secondary sources ... and the only source offered so far which comes anywhere close to meeting that test is a two-part article in the local newspaper in County Offaly. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS Knockanore, you claim that the Offaly Historical and Archaeological Society is "highly regarded". Any evidence in reliable sources for that assertion, or that its publications are the subject of the professional peer review and fact-checking discussed in Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

←If you read Guide to deletion, you will see that it says clearly that "relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin". You have offered no facts or evidence; all you have offered is an unfounded allegation of a political agenda on the part of an established editor.
 * Strong Keep This article is only deemed unsalvagable by user Brown HairedGirl because it does not fit her own political ideology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.143.33 (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)  — 143.117.143.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please don't make assumptions about my political ideology. My objections are to the lack of proper sources, and the use of the article to promote the perspective of the protagonists in a political controversy, when the controversy itself is the most notable aspect of the whole thing. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...in your (humble?) opinion.82.36.178.185 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not in my opinion: on the basis of the extent of coverage in reliable sources, per wikipedia's notability guidelines. One of the problems caused by the participation of single-purpose accounts in deletion debates is that such editors are often unaware of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am refering to your opinion that the controversy itself is the most notable aspect of the whole thing I'm sorry you need to Bite the above for their inexperience of Wikilawyering.82.36.178.185 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The main purpose of a deletion debate is to assess whether an article complies with wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it is a problem that your replies here do not address the lack of reliable sources on the incident itself, and consequent failure to meet the notability guidelines. Instead of addressing those issues, you have chosen to claim (without any evidence) that I have some political ideology which is being brought to bear on the debate. In terms of reliable secondary sources for the event, the closet we have anything which would meet WP:N is two articles in a low-circulation local newspaper:

That's it. There is nothing else to establish the notability of the 1921 events, apart from primary sources and a bunch of unreliable sources

... but to establish the notability of the TV documentary we have:
 * 1) History Ireland, January-February 2008
 * 2) More coverage in the Irish Independent
 * 3) Lots more coverage in the Irish Times
 * 1) History Ireland, January-February 2008
 * 2) More coverage in the Irish Independent
 * 3) Lots more coverage in the Irish Times
 * 1) History Ireland, January-February 2008
 * 2) More coverage in the Irish Independent
 * 3) Lots more coverage in the Irish Times
 * 1) Lots more coverage in the Irish Times
 * 1) Lots more coverage in the Irish Times

Plus less reliable sources such as: ... plus the fact that on 18 April 2008, the television documentary The Killings at Coolacrease won an International Hugo Television Award (Gold Plaque in the Documentary: History and Biography category), run as part of the 44th Chicago International Film Festival (see )
 * Mention of the documentary in an Oireachtas debate:
 * Mention of the documentary in an Oireachtas debate:

Despite all this evidence, you and the other single-purpose editors such as Knockanore are arguing that the TV documentary is not notable, but the event is? Please, if you are going to reply, do take some time to read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SYN and then the notability guidelines at WP:N. That way you might have something to say about the deletion criteria rather than making inaccurate guesses about my alleged "political ideology". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You and the other single-purpose editors such as Knockanore are arguing that the TV documentary is not notable - Where? 82.36.178.185 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You above, others on the article's talk page. OH, and BTW, don't edit other contributors' comments. (see WP:TPG). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Deletion is for trivia, stuff like pop-groups no one has heard of.--GwydionM (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. Trivia is only one of many possible grounds for deletions: see some of the others listed at Deletion policy. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

...also a point made in the discussion that has cause for concern. It was said that one contributing historian to the documentary was unhappy with it while "none of the other professional historians has publicly defended it". There is an inference that because they haven't defended it, they are distancing themselves from it. It would be a mistake to come to this conclusion. Feint (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Feint (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. This article should be deleted for all the reasons mentioned above by BrownHairedGirl. A new article should first give brief outline of event (as there are very little secondary sources) and then the bulk of the article should be based around the subsequent debate. As I've mentioned elsewhere, this (the debate) is how an unknown story came to a wider audience - Anybody doing a Wiki search on the subject would almost certainly be aware of the documentary and media coverage.
 * Comment I should stress that the quality of the TV documentary is not relevant to its notability. Whether it is a brilliant piece of research or a pile of tendentious nonsense, what matters is its notability, which is established though the copious refs on the subsequent controversy. I would argue strongly against any suggestion that TV documentary be regarded as a reliable source on matters of history, other than in exceptional circumstances ... and in this case the notability of the programme stems in large part from the controversy over its reliability. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The subject is important enough to induce, on a quick count, ten history professionals to involve themselves publicly in it. Two of them have published on the subject. (Regarding the separate issue of the TV programme, no history professional that I know of has defended it publicly, and five that I know of have publicly declared it to have no merit as history.) Pat Muldowney (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Pat Muldowney (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. After covering the article you created with refs to unreliable sources and to your own self-published work, you are still at it: you claim that five historians have publicly denounced the TV programme, but offer no evidence for that assertion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Pat, it's interesting to see you still continuing to use wikipedia to promote your campaign against the TV programme, but it's disappointing that you still appear not to have read any of the wikipedia guidelines on which this nomination is based. The involvement of history professionals does not establish notability; what does establish notability is substantial coverage in reliable sources. The event has only one piece of coverage which comes close to being a reliable source; whereas has the TV programme has lots of coverage in reliable sources (which is a different issue from whether the programme itself is reliable).
 * CommentBHG please read How to avoid being a "biter". You state You are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns; then when a newbie endeavours to follow this, you wholesale revert with ad hominen attacks. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. The edit of mine to which you link is the boilerplate AFD notice, and it does not override COI issues. The edit which I reverted did not address those concerns, it reinserted copious references to partisan and unreliable sources. If you are concerned about helping new editors, then you may want to take some time to try explaining to Muldowney about wikipedia policies; I have already tried at great length, as you would see if you read the article talk page. There is nothing "ad hominem" about drawing attention to the fact that an edit breaches wikipedia policies has been made in pursuit an acknowledged conflict of interest. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You posted the boilerplate plate - if it meant jackshit to you in this particular instance, a personal note disclaiming it could have been left. A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. You well know the Sword of Damocles is above this article. Your aim, as shown here, is to have this article removed. What motivation have you to allow improvements?  Can you not see that any edit you make to this article while it is under AfD is conflicting with your interests. If you desist from editing the article while the AfD is open I will endeavour to assist Pat to the best of my abilities. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. It is not my aim to have this article removed; my aim is to remove the use on unreliable sources, original research and synthesis to create an article in pursuit of a POV. I believe that deletion is the best way to resolve that, but while deletion is being discussed, the article continues to use unreliable sources because you just reinstated them without addressing their unreliability, and those sources should be removed to avoid misleading anyone who reads the article now. I don't know what sort of help you intend to give Pat, but if your idea of help consists of reinstating unreliable sources into an article, don't expect me to think that your help is beneficial to wikipedia. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep.The suggestion that this page should be deleted is demonstrably absurd. Why is BrownHairedGirl carrying on a one girl campaign against this subject. It is somewhat obsessional. If she is so keen to celebrate a television programme, why not go off and start a page on the subject. I suggest she will have it all to herself - happy days for everyone, no need for this censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomath (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC) As to Muldowney, I object strongly to any conduct, from whatever POV, which amounts to using wikipedia as a campaigning tool, as Muldowney has down. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Rather than making claims of censorship, why not address some some of the relevant policy points? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. Because you are a policy pedant, searching for procedures that justify censorship. Is there a policy or procedure to describe that? I have better things to do than consider such nonsense. BTW, if this is Pat Muldowney's first venture into Wikipedia (people have to start somewhere), I doubt that he is getting much encouragement to persevere, given your obsession. What is your beef? Please go away for a while and let the page develop and then settle down. Maybe you have given up your foolish campaign. I see you are back editing the page. Hardly logical if you want it deleted. Nomath —Preceding comment was added at 22:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, please. My beef is that wikipedia is being abused by a high-profile protagonist in a public controversy to push his POV, using unreliable sources and original research to create an article on a non-notable subject, using the title of a topic which is notable. And indeed, I have edited the page, to remove more of the unreliable sources on which the article is based. If you think that upholding the need for reliable sources is censorship, then you are free to go and try to have the fundamental policy WP:V changed or abolished. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. I hope I am not being uncivil when I now term you an entirely inconsistent policy pedant. You have just deleted a couple of references from the Sunday Independent, while you have left in others. The difference is, presumably, that you approve of the ones you have left in, and disagree with the ones you have censored. You deleted a reference I put in to a review of your celebrated television programme, and then reinserted it. Thank you so much. How about now reinserting the Sunday Independent refs as well. Have you got something against Mr Muldowney.? Do you know him? Have you a special desire to make life a misery for people who are trying to do their best. Or perhaps you have your own pet point of view, which you are hiding behind your professed policy wonk concern for procedure and acronyms. Maybe you are a low profile protagonist. I hope you don't consider this uncivil. Maybe I should be banned too. Nomath —Preceding comment was added at 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Nomath, please can you comment on the comments, not on the contributors, and refrain from personal attacks. After removing a whole load of references to an unreliable source (Heaney's book), I noticed that in the process a ref to a reliable source had been removed, so I reinstated it. Why do you have a problem with that?

Keep While it is distressing than some editors are usning the article for POV pushing, that is not a ground for deletion. The article is well sourced and the comments from other posters in this debate show additonal sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Can you explain more by what you mean by "well-sourced"? As explained above, the article sources consist of several references for tangential points (such as the results of the 1918 election), a bunch of primary sources, a two-part article in a local newspaper, and copious references to a book by Pat Heaney, a local man one of who claims that one of his family was shot by the Pearsons. To me, that looks like the only remotely reliable secondary source is the two-part newspaper article, and nobody has suggested any other reliable secondary sources. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep There is a question as to whether the events described occurred or not. The RTE programme failed to meet basic standards of accuracy and fairness, leaving hundreds of thousands of people with an inaccurate view of history. This was done deliberately with a view to distorting, not clarifying what happened. Apparently, very lax or even non-existent standards of research ethics were applied in this programme. Now BHG wants to apply impossibly high standards to a well-researched and balanced entry that sets the record straight and attempts undo some of the harm done by that ill-advised programme, while condoning those that were applied in the RTE programme. It seems to have been forgotten by BHG that an encyclopaedia entry should strive as far as possible for the truth. The evidence and arguments for this entry are far superior to anything that has been attempted by the supporters of the RTE programme. An outsider can only wonder that some Irish citizens should be so concerned to conceal the truth about an event at a key point in their country's history that they should go to such lengths as this. This is a blatant attempt at censorship with the intention, one suspects of preventing the utter discrediting of the RTE programme and any subsequent attempts to revive it or something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukobserver (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC) — Ukobserver (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Firstly, wikipedia's a standard is not truth, it's verifiability (see WP:V). "Setting the record straight" by "discrediting of the RTE programme" is a blatant breach of WP:NPOV. Finally, you may or may or may be right that the RTE programme was a pile of nonsense, but it's not up to you or me use to use original research to prove or disprove that point; wikipedia is a tertiary source, and it reports the analyses which have already been published in secondary sources. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If it happened & was significant we can write an article. NPOV might be best served if the people now involved in it stepped back a little. DGG (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. Wow, yet another single-purpose account pitching in here. Ukobserver is not a new editor, so he/she is probably unaware of wikipedia policies, which is why every one of the arguments made by Ukobserver directly opposes wikipedia policies.
 * Reply. It astonishes me BHG, that you cannot see that your attacks on Muldowney constitutes one large personal attack - sauce for goose and gander I am afraid. You argue incessantly against his efforts to the point of absurdity - your reference above to removing what you construe as an 'unreliable source' is high handedness of a breath taking quality. You are a one girl band. I have checked today: Muldowney was writing on this subject long before there was a television programme or any mention of one. The point is that you and he have a different point of view, but you are masking yours through acts of procedural superiority, sarcasm and editorial obsession. Why not just accept it, and attempt a rapprochement with the good Doctor. I'm sure you can work it out. Please do, for all our sakes. I take it that the campaign of censorship is now over, as you have been editing the offending page?? Please say yes. Nomath (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Nomath, you are having great fun accusing me of all sorts of things ... but in the midst of your tirades, you have not once addressed wikipedia's policies other than to dismiss them.     Wikipedia is not a blog or a web-hosting service, nor is it indymedia. It is an encyclopedia, with policies covering content and sources. There is no censorship in insisting that wikipedia articles are referenced to reliable sources, and that it is not used by Mukdowney or anyone else as a vehicle for publishing their original research.  At no point in this discussion have you addressed any of the issues wrt to policy, and you seem to have not slightest problem with Uk2censor specifically praising this as supporting the aim of "utter discrediting of the RTE programme".  You may not have a problem with such blatant and deliberate misuse of wikipedia for propaganda purposes, but I do; now, if you think I'm wrong, please address policy and guidelines rather than yet another dose of vitriol at me. As one example, rather than accusing me of "high handedness of a breath taking quality", please explain in what sense Heaney's book meet WP:V? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Muldowney carnival has finally rolled into Wiki-town convinced that they can hijack what might be the last credible place for them to rewrite the story as they see it. They've done it in less credible places like indymedia, censoring comments that differed from theirs (the freedom of the internet). Muldowney/Aubane/IPR/Indymedia were laughed off the stage by the Irish media; they feel a bit sore, because their complaints were rejected by the Broadcasting Complaints Committee and recently have got a right kick in the groin (or is it genitals? Does it matter?) because the programme they had a complete hissy fit about has just picked up an international award. Any version of the story of the Pearsons that includes contributions from any of the above should carry a severe health warning. Feint (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet more pedantry from BHG. One cannot claim truth without providing verifiability. BHG is setting absurdly high standards of verifiability. Apparently RTE is much less demanding. The authors of this entry are not trying to censor anyone. The truth, supported by reliable evidence, is not a point of view. Or perhaps BHG you are some kind of postmodernist who does not believe that there is such a thing as truth, only whatever kind of plausible story you try to concoct? Do you, for example, believe that it is ok to interview the dead as one prominent historian of modern Ireland has done? Or distort what an informant says because you think he was mistaken?

It is proper to ask for as much of a degree of verifiability as the subject demands. If we met the standard that you are trying to maintain for this entry, there would not be much history - we certainly wouldn't be publishing some of the much celebrated heroes of modern Irish history whose standards fall so far below those of Pat Muldowney one wonders if they are historians rather than fantasists. I cannot see the slightest reason why this entry should be removed other than your desire to suppress knowledge of what actually happened at Coolacrease. If informing people of the facts of the matter is not one of the jobs of an encyclopaedia, I don't know what is.**** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukobserver (talk • contribs) 09:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Beyond that, we have lots of primary sources (irrelevant to notability), and two books by involved parties; that hardly amounts to notability per WP:NOTE. As to your suggestion that I should be "explaining the poor historical foundations to the readers" ... are you serious? You appear to be asking me to write a WP:ESSAY of original commentary, in flagrant breach of WP:NOR. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisting note: I think we need more discussion by uninvolved, established editors about this. Sandstein (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaning to keep, but overall the article needs a lot of help. I think I'm uninvolved. I certainly think the article could be improved in any number of ways, but I don't think deletion is the answer here. The incident has been made somewhat notable by the TV show, but other sources do seem to exist. That being said, the article is far from perfect, and it could require a lot of work to cut out the OR from the appropriate information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Wow, "This page is 40 kilobytes long." If you want new reviewers to be uninvolved, maybe it would be better to close this AfD and start from scratch. Far as I can tell, article has plenty sources. As for reliability, history ain't perfect. A lot of ugly things could be erased if "unreliable" witnesses were dismissed! Nom appears to be fighting a scholastic battle against clear notability. That will probably not succeed here at WP where reality occasionally takes a back seat. So why not spend the same energy explaining the poor historical foundations to the readers, rather than to us? Surely people will come here after seeing the TV special, expecting WP to be more NPOV than RTE, and they should get your input too. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Potatoswatter, please take another look at the article. The list looks impressive, because it includes lots of references to trivial points (in sources which are highly unlikely to menton these killings at all). When it comes to the core of the story, the only source which comes anywhere close to being a reliable secondary sources is the articles in the local paper by Philip McConway, who is a postgraduate student. An article by a postgrad in a low-circulation local newspaper is not the sort of peer-reviewed publication that fits the best standard of reliable source, per WP:V.
 * WP has lots of articles on things that aren't true. If you believe it to be an urban legend, then you should say why it is. Legends often lie in the grey area of unverifiability, yet popular belief or mere repetition leads to WP:N. As for whether pointing out the lack of sources constitutes OR, since nobody else in the literature has pointed out the lack of sources, well in that case you've done actual research right here. How does using OR as a bludgeon to delete an article trump putting same OR in the article? Potatoswatter (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. I am not saying that nothing happened there, just that there are inadequate reliable sources to support an article. The rest of your comment is bizarre; if pointing out a lack of reliable secondary sources was itself original research, then WP:V would be a meaningless policy. Please read WP:V, which clearly says that it is the responsibility of editors adding material to demonstrate that it is properly sourced. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because it belongs to an encyclopedia, but from what I've read it needs an enormous overhaul. Unfortunately it is one of those articles which has to include different views and sources, and is a good example of how our history gets mangled by everyone.Red Hurley (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any article attracting this many socks and anons gives me a very strong presumption of non-notability. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Presumption"? Are you applying WP:AUTO to an entire nation? Potatoswatter (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I happen to live there. And no, I had never heard of this topic. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Keep remove any content tht is not adhering to NPOV. BigDunc  Talk 12:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And no matter that it lack reliable secondary sources? :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 15 May 2008 (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.