Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Ann Kelly

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to United_Campaign_Against_Plastic_Bullets. Consensus was reached in this discussion that while sourcing exists, it does not deal with the subject in biographic fashion, but instead focused on the manner of her death. Accordingly, consensus supported a redirect to another article, United_Campaign_Against_Plastic_Bullets being most commonly given. I have redirected to that article, but note that I find consensus exists only to redirect somewhere, not necessarily to that article. Editors should feel free to discuss and retarget the redirect if they obtain consensus to do so. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Ann Kelly[edit]

Carol Ann Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Firstly sourcing. The main source used is the Relatives for justice website. As the name suggests, this is a campaigning website and almost certainly fails WP:RS. Other “references” like indymedia can similarly be discounted as failing that policy.

Secondly, the main problem with the article is that the subject fails the general notability guideline as she hasn’t been covered in depth in reliable sources and what coverage there is appears to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. It reports that she was killed and goes no further than that. When all the padding is stripped away (she liked Abba, she had brothers and sisters, there was violence in NI) we’re left with the simple fact that she was one of over 3,000 people who died in the Northern Ireland troubles. Tragic as her death was, the sad fact is that every year, there are probably hundreds of people killed by state forces around the world. In most cases unless there is some overriding claim, the individuals themselves are not notable else we’d have hundreds of thousands of such articles. Put bluntly, a civilian being killed by state forces is not in itself notable.

Judging by the redlinks in the article, there may be an intent to create similar articles so it would be best to clear this up now as other articles, like this one, would also appear to be against WP:NOTMEMORIAL.

The creator of the article has argued that there are lots of sources and that there was a Congressional hearing. To answer the first point, there seem to be 26 sources, some of them very questionable ones like the World Marxist Review, but what they all have in common is that they appear to go no further than trivial mentions. To deal with the second point, there are 100 Congressional hearings in any one calendar year and the one in question wasn’t even about the subject, it was about the violence in NI in general, so this doesn’t establish notability.

In equivalent cases, such as Keith Bennett, the page is a redirect to a larger article. In this case the appropriate article would be United Campaign Against Plastic Bullets so I’m requesting a redirect there. The controversy surrounding the issue of plastic bullets is notable, the individuals aren’t. Valenciano (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, this should be smerged and redirected. The individual is not notable, the incident is, but the incident affects multiple individuals. A clear distinction shuld be drawn between the two. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect is an ordinary editorial action. It does not involve the deletion tool in any way. Indeed, you have the tool yourself for doing that very thing. Only come to AFD if you want an administrator to get out the deletion tool and actually delete something. Uncle G (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A redirection is almost certain to be controversial i.e. disputed by creator. Valenciano (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which assumptions of bad faith? That you believe that the others are worthy of articles is clear from the fact that you've chosen to redlink them! Please read that policy again! Valenciano (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what? If something is disputed, you discuss. The article's creator has a user talk page, the article itself has a talk page, even the relevant WikiProjects have talk pages. Come here to Articles for Deletion only when you want something deleted. Otherwise you are just wasting the time of the closing administrator. Uncle G (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly unsure if the article should be deleted or simply redirected. I'd lean towards redirect but there's a good case for simply deleting it hence this discussion. Valenciano (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Domer48, I'm happy to discuss how much weight these sources carry, but I'm not going to be swayed by 1) an unsupported claims that the subject is "clearly notable, as per our policies"; 2) a Google search (which in this case is open to reasonable dispute as to proof of notability); 3) a blanket dismissal of the deletion reasons as "unsupportable suggestions"; or 4) an obvious insinuation of bad faith editing. For what it's worth, yes, this was a tragic death, but we don't document every tragic death on wikipedia, or even every tragic death due to a conflict involving paramilitaries - that is down to WP:NOTNEWS. It is one of many unfortunate chapters in the wider history of The Troubles, and if this belongs anywhere, it is in the history of the troubles. The coverage I saw was incidental to wider subjects. I can't see sufficient justification for a stand-alone article about this individual victim, and certainly not an article which - if the emotive language is anything to go by - seems to be taking sides. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, "the main source used is the Relatives for justice website" is not true. If the site is not as is claimed a WP:RS bring it to the appropriate notice board like wise indymedia. It was not true when I first created the article and is defiantly not true now.
Second, "the subject fails the general notability guideline as she hasn’t been covered in depth in reliable sources" again, completely untrue. The subject of the Article has be covered in over forty books and journals and I have not even included newspapers yet.
"what coverage there is appears to fall under WP:NOTNEWS" again, untrue! Describing the substance of the article as an indiscriminate collection of information is unsupportable.
"When all the padding is stripped away...we’re left with the simple fact that she was one of over 3,000 people who died in the Northern Ireland troubles" again untrue! What padding? Detailing the incident, covering the comments of notable individuals, information on the inquest, the subject being raised in a Congressional Hearing? How many of those killed were children, how many of those children were killed with a plastic bullet to the head, how many children shot in the head with a plastic bullet appeared on the cover of a book, in her coffin? That cuts the figure of 3,000 down quite a bit.
The assumption of bad faith is quite obvious, commenting on my intentions has no bearing on this request.
On sources, it is claimed that some of them are "very questionable" and only cites one. They go on to claim that what the remaining sources all have in common is that "they appear to go no further than trivial mentions." Well appearances can be deceiving, and as I asked the question here and got no response, why did they ask again here.
I agree with Uncle G with regard to this request, there are plenty of forums. Lets hope the points I have addressed will not require me having to go through them again. --Domer48'fenian' 19:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will address these points one at a time. Concerning the use of the website "relatives for justice", it's quite normal for AfDs to decide whether or not sources are reliable sources if that decides whether the article stays or goes. The noticeboards generally only come into play when the article isn't a candidate for deletion. Anyway, reliable or not, Relatives for Justice still isn't a good candidate for proof of notability because it's not really an independent source.
The problem with the coverage in the books and journals is that none of the coverage seems to amount to anything more than a mention in a list of victims. The coverage needs to be significant and this looks incidental to a wider subject. Now, if any of these books dedicates pages or chapters to the same victim, that might be a different matter, but you'll need to show where this is rather than expect people to find it for you.
One of the key factors here is whether this falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Precedent is that if an incident, even murder or manslaughter, is reported in the papers immediately after it happens (and again at any inquest, trial etc.) and is never covered again, it is probably not suitable for stand-alone article on Wikipedia, unless it was a massive front-page-grabbing event. There are a lot of different opinions as to what does and doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS, but simply calling is "unsupportable" isn't an argument.
Regarding how notable this death is compared to the other deaths in the troubles, my personal opinions on what makes it more notable: child, yes; shot in the head with a plastic bullet, no, don't see why being shot dead in a different body part and/or with a different material bullet makes it any better; information on the inquest, no, loads of cases have that outcome; subject of congressional hearing, barely if it's a passing mention covering lots of cases; front cover of a book, depends how notable the book was and how blatantly that was used to stoke up further resentment. But what you or I think is not important - it is whether other people consider these factors important to make them write about it after the event. And that boils down, once more, to whether there is sufficient third-party coverage.
And as for your insinuations of bad faith, repeating the allegation again isn't going to win you any good will, especially if your argument is "it's obvious". I'm prepared to wait and see what the newspaper coverage is, but you seem to be basing your arguments on what you think should be notable, and not what independent reliable third-party sources consider notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of "relatives for justice" has been addressed, or hadn't you noticed!
On the "the coverage in the books" you make an assumption when you say "that none of the coverage seems to amount to anything more than a mention" and I have addressed the issue already when is was suggested "they appear to go no further than trivial mentions" have you even checked the sources? Have you even checked the page numbers?
You claim that "One of the key factors here is whether this falls under WP:NOTNEWS" well I disagree, and I'm not the only one. As to talk of "Precedent" I'd ask what precedent, were is this precedent? Is there a policy on this? This discussion is based on Notability.
Why not base this discussion on our General notability guideline rather than just personal opinions.
Casting aspersions about the motives of a respected Author and suggesting that they wished to "stoke up further resentment" i.e. incitement, is in my opinion a big no no on the project and suggest you strike that accusation.
It has already been established that there is "sufficient third-party coverage" so I'll leave it at that.
I agree with Uncle G this is just just wasting the time of the closing administrator. The editor who proposed deletion says they are requesting a redirect. Take Uncle G's advice and close this discussion. --Domer48'fenian' 09:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the burden falls on those that add material to check that it's backed by reliable sources I'm afraid I won't be going over old ground checking that websites previously judged not to be reliable sources are as that's for the article's creator to do. For what it's worth, websites such as Relatives for Justice and indymedia have already been discussed on reliable sources noticeboards. A selection of comments: "Relatives for Justice and An Phoblacht/Republican News. While these can be used to source a Republican point of view, several articles use them to source facts. And some articles are sourced solely from these type of websites."
On Indymedia: here "I'm not sure where they'd fall between a "citizen journalism" site and a highly political newspaper or maybe here: "Open publishing sites, such as OhMyNews, Indymedia, and Slashdot are not reliable sources." Take your pick really. Valenciano (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Must I really have to point out that the issue of RfJ and indymedia have been addressed in the post you were responding to above? The information is backed by reliable sources, or are you disputing the sources that are now being used? --Domer48'fenian' 09:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pointed out that an issue that has been addressed without saying where isn't good enough. The onus is on you to state what the argument was. It may be that other people read that and didn't agree. Some goes for all the books you unilaterally state are impartial reliable sources by respected authors showing significant coverage - this onus is one you to show they are, not for other people to show they're not (and yes, putting a photo of a dead girl on the front of a book makes me suspicious about reliability, same way that a book showing a dead protestant girl killed by the IRA on the front cover would make me supicious).
Finally, this link which you used as a counter-argument to WP:NOTNEWS: skipping over the fact that this is an argument of precedent after you claimed we don't use precedent, we use policy; and overlooking WP:OTHERSTUFF (I'm happy to treat the other article as an example of a notable event, but others may disagree); all that proves is that an incident such as this was proven notable because there was media coverage over a number of years from a variety of high-profile source (e.g. New York Times, TV stations). Find something similar and this case and I'm happy for this article to stay. So I suggest you take your own advice and find these newspaper reports like you said you would. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely the subject must be covered in detail in at least a couple of national-level newspaper articles from 1981? If so, keep, otherwise delete... the Relatives for Justice website cannot seriously be regarded as a reliable source as per WP guidelines. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your right Jim, it was covered in all the National Papers which is only obvious considering the circumstances. I will be adding newspaper reports. --Domer48'fenian' 21:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before you do that, please consider WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."
"Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."
Please also consider the relevant section of WP:N, namely WP:ONEEVENT: "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. Valenciano (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of WP:NOTNEWS as criteria for a discussion on notability has already been discussed above and here. The issue of websites has been discussed and addressed already. You don't know whether you want to merge of delete, and Uncle G says this is just just wasting the time of the closing administrator. Take Uncle G's advice and close this discussion. --Domer48'fenian' 09:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem appropriate to quote the whole of WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." (Emphasis mine)
We're getting dangerously close to WP:Gaming the system here. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Key words there being "for example" i.e. those are not the only things that NOTNEWS covers and "routine news reporting." All deaths in the Northern Ireland Troubles got a mention in newspapers at the time, there were over 3,000 of them, are you saying that all victims deserve an article as a result? Doesn't Wikipedia consider the enduring significance of an event? Trival mentions, such as a mention in a list of victims generally aren't considered notable. Valenciano (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Jim. --Domer48'fenian' 12:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all victims of the troubles will have been treated to routine reportage. I would be astonished if the shooting of a 12 year old girl received only trivial mention in newspapers. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Particularly considering the period. A very heightened state of affairs. --Domer48'fenian' 15:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is precisely the reason why Carol Ann Kelly may have not got much coverage. If the sources Wikipedia is using are correct, she was one of 17 civilians killed by plastics bullets in that period, or one of nine children. The sad fact is that society puts humans faces to a few individual deaths, whilst when many people die of the same things, the individuals are treated as statistics. There's plenty of debate to be had over who should be receiving media coverage, but Wikipedia is not here to compensate for lack of coverage for things that people think should be notable but aren't.
However, speculating over media coverage isn't useful. Either this death was significantly covered by the newspapers beyond routine reports of deaths or it wasn't. That is why we need to see these newspaper reports. In the meantime, for what it's worth, it seems to me this death received little more attention from third-party sources than the other eight children who died this way. However, there is definitely scope to make a full article out of plastic bullets in Northern Ireland, and not just the sub-section that currently exists in Plastic Bullet. That looks like the sensible home for the encyclopaedic information about this death and the other 16. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is some evidence that this particular death received extraordinary media attention. A photo of Carol Ann Kelly in her coffin was used as the front cover of the book, They Shoot Children: The use of rubber and plastic bullets in the North of Ireland. It's a disturbing image and I wouldn't recommend those of a sensitive disposition search for it. It looks like it was originally from a newspaper piece. I guess we won't know until someone does some microfiche work. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of media attention, yes, evidence of extraordinary media attention, no. Any book called "They Shoot Children" has an obvious incentive to use the most graphic image they can get their hands on, and that wasn't necessarily anything more than routine coverage of the funeral in a local paper (and, unfortunately for early 1980s Belfast, this sort of thing was routine). But yes, we'll know when someone does the research. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United Campaign Against Plastic Bullets. Irrespective of the number or quality of sources mentioning her - they are all doing so in the context of her death and its aftermath. There is nothing to suggest she sufficiently notable for a biography (which is a description or account of someone's life). This is pretty standard procedure. Rockpocket 16:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting this is "pretty standard procedure" ignores the example cited above by Jim. That the subject was still being discussed after her death, is the issue being addressed and the request for additional sources. --Domer48'fenian' 16:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would contend that this is not simply a biographical article and should possibly be refocused and retitled to reflect the event. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her death may still be discussed by reliable sources, but her life is not. I'm saying, irrespective of any continuing newsworthiness pointed out by Jim, she does not merit a biography on the basis of WP:ONEEVENT. To quote: "The general rule ... is to cover the event, not the person." The notable event here appears to be that is that her death was one of a number around the same time that collectively focused attention on the use of plastic bullets in NI. Hence my suggestion to merge the content on all of these deaths to the article on that campaign and redirect the individuals' biographies to that article. Rockpocket 17:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Catfish Jim, broadly that is exactly what can be done. There were approximately 400 children killed during the 25 year period of the Northern Ireland Troubles and regrettably it was a routine event, with the death reported in the news but thereafter overtaken by some other shooting or bombing and largely forgotten by all except the family. This especially applies to May 1981 when there was a heavy death toll. Energies can and should be focused on improving the existing plastic bullet articles. The issue of plastic bullets, including those killed by them, is very notable, the individuals themselves aren't. Valenciano (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a pressing need to take action now, a merge would seem most appropriate, given the current state of the references. the article can alwaysbe unmerged later if the sources warrant it.Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll go with a merge, although I'm not sure United Campaign Against Plastic Bullets is the best destination. I personally would prefer creating an article called Plastics bullet use in Northern Ireland or something similar and compile the information there. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with that... the new article name sounds a better option. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a POV fork of plastic bullet, waiting to happen. You do realize a balanced article entitled Plastic bullet use in Northern Ireland would be required to discuss all aspects of their use, not just become - as it inevitably would - a list of all the kids who were killed? Merge to that article and we will end up with all sorts of WP:UNDUE issues. UCAPB would suit the purposes of an encyclopedia better, IMHO, because its formation was inherently linked with the preceding deaths. Rockpocket 00:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually more worried the other way round. In my experience, it is usually the articles about campaigning organisations that turn into soapboxes for their POV on the issue. However, if that merge option would be a quicker solution, I'd rather to that and discuss rearrangement of the wiki articles later. (The other option would be to put the whole lot into the Northern Ireland section of the Plastic Bullet article, which would probably mean it gets policed better.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to UCAPB. Up until this little girl's tragic end, she was merely a face in a crowd. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carol_Ann_Kelly&oldid=1136113300"