Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Gillen

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 of the debate was No consensus, Keep --lightdarkness (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Gillen

Complete garbage --not a single citation; shoddy grammar and spelling; name is not even correct- should be Brian Gillan Rosemary's Baby 00:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. The words/phrases "reportedly" and "believed to be" show that the info is unverifiable at the very least. —EdGl 03:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete before this other Brian Gillen [1] notices... Pascal.Tesson 05:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:V. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I believe the article is verifiable, if not currently sourced. There are more than enough search results for "brian gillen" ira to source this article, e.g. [2] [3]. Why do you say it should be "Brian Gillan"? "Brian Gillen" seems to be the correct spelling, to me. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-02 09:14Z
  • Weak keep Name appears to be correct, but needs more sourcing. SM247My Talk 10:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He's verifiably a senior figure in the NI Republican movement. In this context phrases like reportedly usually means something everyone knows for a fact, but the subject himself denies. Gillen is the correct spelling. Grammar and spelling should usually be corrected rather than deleted. For another ref see [4]. Dlyons493 Talk 11:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep 135 Google hits for "Brian Gillen" with IRA. Seems verifiable and notable. Needs expansion though and a few more references wouldn't hurt either. Brian 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball
  • Keep per Quarl; the Guardian says "... Brian Keenan and Brian Gillen, whom security sources say are members of the IRA army council along with Mr Adams." That'll do me, as the Army Council doesn't publish a yearbook. As for Councillor Gillen, he's clearly not the subject of the article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not worthy of an article in own right. -- Alias Flood 16:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOR from WP:VER without WP:RS. Ste4k 17:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The gist of the article is verifiable and we have references; if you still think the entire article is original research please justify. If you think particular sentences need references then add {{citation needed}} to them. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-02 21:38Z
  • Delete nn. Wikibout-Talk to me! 20:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep a member of the army council of the IRA seems notable to me. Jcuk 23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A member of the IRA army council is notable. Royalbroil 03:56, 4 July 2006 (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.