Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Gilmour


 * 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.  Nish kid 64  19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Gilmour

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete: Non-notable. Not a single quote, source or external link. Subjective tone. Dearth of info as to his entire life or what caused him to allegedly become an informer. This snippet of a page was created with contempt and out of expediency. Inthegloaming 14:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- agree with nom- this person, if he even exists is non notable- the article fails WP:BIO. Astrotrain 18:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Shyam  ( T / C ) 19:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete, possibly speedy. No assertion of notability (being a supergrass isn't enough), and no sources or references at all. Argyriou (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - non notable. - Kittybrewster 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The supergrass revletaions were a major part of The Troubles. Derry Boi 20:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the most absurd non-notable IRA member stub yet. David Lauder 20:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Most of the IRA biogs that have been added recently are not very notable in my opinion. This chap, however, is. One reason for this is that he was a member of both the PIRA and the INLA while also working for the RUC Special Branch. When he becamea supergrass his testimony was used to convict a large number of republicans. His paramilitary career is therefore a notable, though minor part of the history of the Troubles. Perhaps more importantly, he has written a book about his time as a republican paramilitary, "Dead Ground -Infiltrating the IRA", (Warner Books 1998 ISBN 075152615). A google search for him http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=raymond+gilmore+ira&meta= throws up a very large number of hits for this reason. While the current article here is not very good, Gilmore is definitely notable for the same reason as Eamon Collins and Sean O'Callaghan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdorney (talk • contribs).
 * Delete per nom. ffm  yes? 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: If this guy is notable then someone needs to show why soon with sourced reasons. If not, then Delete .--Jackyd101 01:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Concerns addressed.--Jackyd101 05:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Jdorney 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now expanded the article with sources. I suggest people have a look at the updated version before judging whether to delete the article.
 * Speedy delete, as it qualifies under CSD A7. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep due to presence of links to two non-trivial articles entirely about this subject in mainstream publications. The Belfast newspaper refers to him as the "most notorious" of the supergrasses, which also sounds like a third party's argument that he's notable. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. From WP:BIO: "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." BBC. Belfast Telegraph. Primary subject of both (that's multiple) articles. Notability indisputable. — coe l acan t a lk  — 04:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per MrDarcy. Tyrenius 04:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep There's a Sunday Times article as well. Hugely notable figure in the history of The Troubles. One Night In Hackney 08:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. (Very) doubtful objectivity, especially in reference to Diplock courts. If necessary merge into article on Supergrass (informer).--Major Bonkers 12:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Excuse me, but what exactly is not objective here? The Diplock Courts were special anti-terrorist courts with no juries. Under the supergrass scheme, the only evidence was the testimony of the informer. For this reason, most of the cases brought before it were thrown out by Lord Lowry, who did not find the witnessses to be credible. Where is the bias in what I wrote? Please explain. I edited this article in good faith and resent the allegationof bias. Gilmour is notable, aside from his role in the supergrass trials, because he is the subject of a high selling book and numerous newspaper articles. The Independent article here
 * Jdorney 13:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You have altered the article so that it now includes a reference to the Diplock courts: []. You can hardly blame me for commenting on the article as written rather than your subsequent revision! I have made no allegation of bias.--Major Bonkers 16:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The only alteration I made was including the term 'Diplock courts'. So I don't see where you got the "(very) doubtful objectivity" from. It's ok though, I accept your retraction. Jdorney 16:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you think I have retracted, but I stand by all my comments above. If you read the article from the viewpoint of someone coming to it without any specialist knowledge they would get entirely different impressions between reading the first draft and the revision. Excluding the reference to Diplock courts makes it read as though a kangaroo court was involved; including the reference makes it slightly clearer that, despite extraordinary circumstances, legal principles were adhered to. Not putting events into context equates to a lack of objectivity.--Major Bonkers 16:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if so it was not intentional.You could of course have made the minor alteration yourself instead of alleging bias on my part. Or suggesting deleting the article.Jdorney 17:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not alleged any bias on your part.--Major Bonkers 18:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything remiss in Jdorney's edits. "Non juried" is the key qualification.Tyrenius 06:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Major Bonkers, you called this person "non-notable." However, the person clearly meets the standard for notability provided by WP:BIO (restated in the keep vote below). How do you reconcile these two points? | Mr. Darcy talk 05:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is my job is it? Anyway, I don't believe in Hegelian dialectic. --Major Bonkers 18:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The validity of your opinion is being questioned with good cause. You are under no obligation to justify it, but failing to do so as you have may well result in it being given less weight or even discounted by the closing admin. Tyrenius 00:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:BIO The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person -- Barry   talk  16:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Unfortunatly Gilmours activities as a tout led to many arrests of people, particularly in Derry.  His activities as a tout have been well documented and have been investigated by numerous journalists - Peter Taylor being a prime example who deals with him in his book and documentry 'Provos'.  He has also been in the news recently (which was a headline story in Ireland).  All I see here is the same old and boring excuses from people to have almost anything to do with Irish Republican related articles stricken from wiki.Irish Republican 20:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pretty obvious this specimen of a creature is notable like other Irish like McGartland and O'Callaghan.--Vintagekits 21:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jdorney, Coelacan. Vintagekits and IrishRepublican appear to be forgetting our quaint WP:NPOV policy. Some people would applaud the subject's career as a fink, no doubt rather more than would find it "unfortunate". Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Diplock courts? I'm sure you'd never find something like those anywhere else (hmm: Special Criminal Court; Offences against the State Act 1939).  Angus McLellan  (Talk) 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a strong policy regarding gratuitous derogatory comments about living people. See WP:BLP. Please do not make them. Tyrenius 00:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears notable, even among the other "supergrass" informers. Now that references have been added, let's keep it. Brianyoumans 01:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Coelacan and others. The JPS talk to me  12:51, 14 February 2007 (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.