Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McKenna and Bowen killings


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

McKenna and Bowen killings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete: - Tragic deaths in a brutal most likely sectarian killing, but non-notable under 1E and GNG; same rationale as for Kevin Heatley AFD, below. Editor who created this article appears determined to create articles for whichever victims of the Troubles that he or she elects to create. There were almost 3600 deaths in the last installment of the Troubles and they all have a story, and almost are all named at CAIN. We cannot create an article for each one, and these tragic deaths do not necessarily qualify for NOTABILITY based on victimhood or the particular circumstances of this death. Also note that the article itself is an example of blatant POV-pushing. Quis separabit?  18:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The death of which 12 or 13 year-old? Are you sure you have nominated the article you intended? RashersTierney (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rashers. The 12 or 13 year old, of course, is Kevin Heatley (see directly below); as the rationales are almost identical when I was compiling and formatting I evidently transposed some text. Rewritten. Thanks. Quis separabit?  23:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Unfortunate as deaths are these dont appear to meet notability criteria, as per previous comments the articles from this user are not coming up to notable status. Will link to guidance to assist in future articles Amortias (T)(C) 21:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The killings are notable and adequately documented, even if the people is not. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mind explaining why you think this killing is notable "even if the people is not"? Having a source (even a valid source) does not confer notability per se, btw. Under Eastmain's logic, the floodgates would be potentially open to thousands of article (as Death of ..... or Killing of ....) from any of the myriad websites, unbiased or otherwise, online, for anyone, just a few examples here: killed on 9/11, or during the Troubles, or in Vietnam, or by police, or executed by a state or government, or featured on 20/20 or Dateline or Nightline, or with an IMDb bio, or almost any attention catching story about almost any conflict, weather disaster, publicized personal tragedy, etc. (WP:SLIPPERYSLOPE) Quis separabit?  00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per arguments presented above. User Eastmain does not state why the article is notable and nothing in the article shows notability.  Do we need to start an article for every victim of this conflict. --Dmol (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and then some. While a killing can be notable even if the victims were not before death, this doesn't seem to have gotten much ongoing coverage, in reliable sources.  This is certainly sad, but literally thousands of people were killed during The Troubles - as would my grandparents had they not gotten out in time.  Even if this stub were kept, it is such a mess that it would have to be completely re-written. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. There would probably have been significant coverage at the time in British and Irish newspapers, but verifying this would probably require access to hard-copy or microfilm collections of newspapers. If anyone has access to the archives of The Times or other newspapers that hide their archives behin a paywall, perhaps they could check there. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Eastmain, but you still have not demonstrated why these particular deaths are notable for an encyclopedia. No-one disputes that the killings made the papers at the time. But so do traffic accidents, muggings, non-terrorism related killings, missing people, etc.   This does not mean that the death is in any way notable. Do you contend that all victims of the Troubles (over 3500 of them) are worthy of inclusion.  If so, then we would have to add all the victims from Sudan, Congo, Ukraine, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.   If this is not the idea you want, what makes these examples different.  Nothing does.  They were sad tragic events that happened on an almost daily basis for thirty years. --Dmol (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Saying again what I have said in several other current AfD debates: Whilst any death is tragic, and deaths due to natural disasters and conflicts, declared or undeclared, seem particularly so, it is our policy that the subjects of articles must be notable. For this reason we do not have articles on every soldier killed in a war, every victim of a pandemic, or everyone who died in a horrific disaster, though we will probably have articles on the war, pandemic or disaster in question. We do have articles about people who have died in such circumstances, but only where those people were already notable for other reasons. Although these deaths were a tragedy the people themselves were not notable. It is not our place to provide personal memorials. RomanSpa (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2014 (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.