Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dissident Irish Republican Campaign 1998 - Present

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. Concerns about sourcing and possible renaming do exist, however. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident Irish Republican Campaign 1998 - Present[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A complete work of unsourced original research. No sources that refer to the periodic dissident violence from various quarters as a unified "campaign". Only exists in the head of its creator, I'm afraid. JonChapple ^Talk 19:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - from what I know of recent Northern Irish history, (enough), this article reads as factually correct. It is written from a neutral point of view and with what would seem a considerable degree of authority. The fact that it lacks referencing almost throughout is a considerable weakness but it's a young article - let it breathe. Mark^Dask 12:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article stays, it needs urgent attention with the referencing. Normally I'm happy to let uncited articles hang around, but when it's such a sensitive and still divisive subject, we don't really want the article to be open to any allegations of bias of fabrication. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real and notable events; numerous sources can be found --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as far as I can tell, factually correct and definitely notable. However, calling it a 'campaign' without sourcing seems to constitue original research. Perhaps renaming is in order? Maethordaer (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems very likely to me that sources exist for this topic. I've tagged the article to the effect that they need to be added. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2011 (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.