Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Bannigan


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 03:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Owen Bannigan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails WP:Politician. He was not notable, he was a local councillor. While his death on polling day was tragic, would there be an article if he had died a week earlier or later? He was not notable for anything else in his life. and the article was only created after his death. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Snappy (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Please note that his death disrupted an election. It had to be cancelled, the ballots had to be destroyed, new candidates have to be selected and the vote has to be run again. Therefore whether he died last week or next, as suggested by the nominator, is irrelevant. He died when he died and disrupted the election, an unprecedented, possibly unheard of, event. In addition, the creation of an article after the subject has died is not unusual. Herman Dillon and Anand Modak died on the same day as Owen Bannigan.
 * Keep. The nominator's rationale, in referring to this guideline, is clearly questionable, possibly invalid.
 * Please see the addition to 'Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.'
 * 'A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.' Check. He has received national-level press coverage in multiple reliable sources. --86.45.164.21 (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He received no national coverage while he was alive. So what 86.45.164.21 is saying is that the only notable about this man is his death, she may think that's a valid reason but I think it's dubious. Also, please refrain from the What about X arguments. We are discussing this article not the others mentioned. Snappy (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While it is true we are discussing this article and this article only, the nominator clearly invited comparison with the two others to which she refers by correctly stating that "the article was only created after his death" though what this means for its possible deletion is anyone's guess. --86.45.164.21 (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't invite any comparison. 86.45.164.21 did and she is incorrect. Snappy (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The nominator inserted into her nomination "the article was only created after his death" - did she not? --86.45.164.21 (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did, so?. The objector (86.45.164.21) is the one who made comparisons, didn't she? Snappy (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The nominator invited these comparisons by doing what she has just admitted to - did she not? The nominator did not provide any evidence for that part of her argument. The evidence which the nominator would prefer not to be presented here discredits this part of her doubtless carefully written rationale. --86.45.164.21 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The objector (86.45.164.21) has not provided any evidence either, has she? Instead she attacks me, oh well! Snappy (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The evidence regarding creation after death is there on this page if the nominator wishes to see it, though evidence of an attack is not so forthcoming, I should hope. This is a deletion discussion, the purpose of which is to provide reasons to delete or keep, based upon the nominator's rationale for deleting. The nominator wrote in her rationale "and the article was only created after his death" - how is this relevant to the decision regarding keep or delete? The evidence against her statement was given, was then rejected by her and now she is denying that it was ever presented in the first place, and, furthermore, is claiming to be under attack. Who is "attacking" who here? --86.45.164.21 (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 86.45.164.21 keeps harping on that I wrote that "the article was only created after his death". Why is she obsessed with this? I did write it, it is a fact. She created the article after Brannigan's death, I am pointing out this fact. Snappy (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is true but not as an argument for deletion. When the nominator was presented with an argument as to why she referred to an essay which indicated she did not understand her own reasoning. --86.45.164.21 (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - he seems to fall on just the right side of the line in WP:Politician. It's irrelevant why he received "significant press coverage": he did receive it. But I'd be equally happy with a redirect if the information about him were included instead in an article on the election.Jsmith1000 (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, on balance. (Close thing, though.) Deb (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Being a county-level councillor is not a claim of notability that would ordinarily get a person into Wikipedia in the first place (see WP:POLITICIAN), and the fact that the admittedly unusual quirk of dying on election day happened to generate a small burst of national coverage for one or two days does not make him any more encyclopedically notable than he would be if he'd died six months earlier or not at all. Not everybody who happens to get their name into a few newspaper articles qualifies as notable for our purposes; their notability has to be genuinely sustainable somehow beyond one or two days worth of "human interest" coverage. I fail to see any reason at all why a biography of a local county councillor who was "notable" only for the timing of his death is something anybody will actually still need to see five or ten or fifty years from now, which is the test that determines whether somebody belongs in an encyclopedia or not. Wikinews, sure, but not here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to article on the elections. Temporary (and unfortunate) coverage. Murry1975 (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Go  Phightins  !  02:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree with user:Bearcat's logic. There is no valid reason for encyclopedic coverage of a person whose death, and death alone, made him a brief human interest story.  That an election was scrapped is certainly interesting, and could be a topic within the article on elections in general or elections within his jurisdiction in specific.  We are discussing an article about a person, and the accomplishments of that person, while alive, makes him notable or not... not the unfortunate timing of his demise.  Nickmalik (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is mentioned in Monaghan County Council election, 2014 which is the proper place for this event. Also, a comment above by 86.45.164.21 implies the whole County Council election was cancelled. In fact the election will only be re-run in the Ballybay-Clones area (6 seats), as the election and counting of votes and electing of the other 12 members went ahead in the other two local electoral areas of the County Council. Snappy (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.--PatrickGuinness (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable politician.68.232.186.227 (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:40, 9 June 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.