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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David McConaghie[edit]

David McConaghie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there are news articles on this individual, all of them cover him due to his involvement in a single event, an alleged crime that he may have been involved in. That means that as well as being a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS, this article is also a BLP violation on the basis of WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME: "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." This article follows disagreements on whether this material should be included in [BLP of David Simpson MP] consequently I'm concerned that this article may later be used to reintroduce that material, which is highly questionable on BLP grounds. Valenciano (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This, this and this all suggest that your interest in McConaghie stem from the fact that you want to add blp violating material about him, else you would simply have created the article about him in the first place, so I don't think my concerns on that score are unwarranted. However the main reason why the article should be deleted is not because it may later be used as a WP:COATRACK to disparage either him or David Simpson, it's that the subject clearly isn't notable. If the subject was as well known as you claim then we'd expect him to be covered in some depth in reliable sources. Yet his only coverage is a day or two after his arrest, in stories in the context of a single event. I've yet to see a single reliable source covering him in any depth that is not about that event, making this a textbook case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. None of your other claims of notability (minister of religion, press spokesman for a pressure group, speech writer for a politician) meet any of our criteria at WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have never added any BLP-violating material, either in this article or anywhere else, so there are no grounds for suggesting that I "want to add" any. The sheer lunacy of suggesting that any article should be deleted in case at some future date someone adds something improper means that no Wikipedia content should be allowed to stand. Brocach (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you reread the above again: "the main reason why the article should be deleted is .... that the subject clearly isn't notable." Valenciano (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many more sources and details have been added, relating to his profile in churches and other religious bodies, in politics, and as a former member of the Civic Forum for Northern Ireland. No doubt other material will be added - it is hardly reasonable to judge any new article within a day of its creation. His arrest, incidentally, is not mentioned in the article. Brocach (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about - in fact, does not even mention - his arrest. Every one of the 15 cited sources (to date) deals with other matters that go to establish his notability, and almost all are independent and authoritative. Brocach (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The major source you have added (the Belfast Times article) only exists because of the arrest. Which surely should be added to the articleTheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I quite understand TheLongTone's view that the arrest should be added to the article, but there is a current discussion[1] at BLPN about whether it can be referred to and I'd rather give that time to be considered. Brocach (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To counter this "lots of sources" argument: four of the "sources" which Brocach claims establish notability are letters which the subject wrote to newspapers, which anyone can do. This one and the archived one from Coleraine Free Presbyterian Church are not independent of the subject and similarly don't count for establishing notability. Eight of them are identical news stories the day after his arrest, (tellingly there doesn't even seem to have been any news stories about that event since) thus those sources fall under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E criteria. This link doesn't even mention him. The CAIN ref and the NI Assembly ref simply mention that he was appointed to the Civic Forum, membership of which doesn't meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN and those ones are certainly not about the subject. Valenciano (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum. Insofar as notability is indicated by speaking for the ruling Democratic Unionist Party at more than a local level, McConaghie's achieving publication in Dromore, Derry, Carrickfergus, Coleraine etc does indeed go some way to showing that this Portadown-based full-time activist has a higher-than-average profile. Having a dozen sermons published on the website of a church in which he is "only" a visiting speaker is also significant in establishing his prominence within Free Presbyterianism, and lends weight to the independently sourced assertion that he was viewed as a potential successor to Ian Paisley. Not a single one of the news stories, much less the eight(!) bizarrely claimed by Valenciano, is from the day after his arrest: the date of his arrest is not mentioned in the article, although it can be found in the sources. The stories are not "identical": each of those cited has something new to add, and I deliberately avoided citing every use of agency stories carried identically by multiple outlets, even though that would have helped to indicate this character's notability. Indeed, the date of his arrest is not even mentioned in the article because the article is not about, and makes no reference to, the fact of his arrest. There is nothing significant in the non-inclusion (to date) of news stories after someone is arrested: there is a sub judice rule which the media often, and wrongly, interpret as applying from arrest, rather than to a trial process. In principle anything truthful can still be written about him, which is not to say that it needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia, least of all in this, legally ultra-safe, bio article. The single link that doesn't mention McConaghie by name is there because it is about a Good Friday Agreement institution to which McConaghie was appointed by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, as one of only five representatives of organised religion in Northern Ireland, and establishes that his appointment had not been formally rescinded as late as 2011. The cumulative effect of McConaghie's media work and appearances on behalf of the Elim Pentecostal Church, the Free Presbyterian Church, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Caleb Foundation, the Civic Forum etc. suffice to bring him into the WP:POLITICIAN fold under the rubric of "significant press coverage". I have (a little) difficulty coming up with any logical explanation of why Valenciano is trying so energetically - on Baby Jesus' birthday - to keep accurate and amply sourced facts about this interesting, important and newsworthy unionist political figure out of Wikipedia. Brocach (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't believe that you're seriously arguing that having letters published in a few small local newspapers equates to notability. I'm afraid I disagree that a religious minister talking about God is notable, since that it is, you know, what religious ministers tend to do. The sermons you refer to were published on the website of the local branch of a church with 12,000 members and their lack of significance can be seen from the fact that even the McConaghie article acknowledges that they've been deleted from there. If that tiny church didn't deem them to have lasting significance, neither should we. It's a moot point anyway since the church website can be dismissed as a non-independent source.
There are 8 sources in the article all from the same date and all focusing on the criminal element and consequently they all suggest that it was a "here today, forgotten tomorrow" news story. Since the bulk of the biographical material in that article comes from those sources we are still in WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E territory. All coverage of this individual aside from that consists of fairly trivial mentions, none of which satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Despite your claims that the individual is "well known" you haven't been able to find a single source covering him in any depth which is independent of the alleged crime.
Other claims to notability: spokesman for a political party. No, especially since he clearly wasn't a major spokesman and most crucially didn't receive any significant coverage in that role.
The Civic Forum of Northern Ireland was basically a quango/talking shop with no powers. Unelected, its members don't meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria. He was a member until 2011 only in a strict legal sense. The forum only met 12 times over a two year period, was effectively scrapped post-2002 as ineffective and was even described by member groups as too large and unwieldy, having 60 members for a population of 1.5 million.
Regarding your "baby Jesus birthday" comments, since you raised the issue let me comment: your userpage says that you are the one, not me, who lives in a country where 25th December is celebrated as both a religious and public holiday. I therefore suggest you ask the question to yourself, 25 December is a key "family day" in Ireland, where your userpage says that you live, yet rather than spending it enjoying turkey, stuffing and mince pies with loved ones, you've spent much of it (a ten hour period from 11:14 to 21:31) on a single minded effort to include this material. Why is the inclusion of that material so important to you, that you'd devote most of one of the biggest Irish public holidays to it? That campaign has so far seen you ignore WP:BRD, breach WP:1RR, ignore a third opinion and now you are badgering editors who have argued for delete in this debate here and here, in possible violation of WP:CANVASS. I'd respectfully suggest that you take a step back and let discussions run their course, maybe go off and actually enjoy the holiday period in Ireland rather than, as you put it, "experiencing some frustration" over Wikipedia, which believe me, ain't worth it. Valenciano (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has developed nicely over the past few days and it should now be obvious to nany neutral observer that Valenciano's objections are unfounded. This article deals with a genuinely notable figure in Northern Ireland politics, gives a full and balanced account of his career, is supported by a wide range of credible sources and does not even mention the unfortunate business that Valenciano keeps insinuating into this discussion. I invite earlier pro-deletion editors to reconsider. Brocach (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed and you're really not listening to what people tell you, are you? That the article doesn't mention "the unfortunate business" is not the point. The point, as TheLongTone already explained to you above, is that the main refs covering his career only exist because of that "unfortunate business." They all focus on the alleged crime and thus fall under WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Letters to small local newspapers don't demonstrate notability since anyone just has to write to them enough times and they'll get published. Numerous ones show him as a religious minister giving sermons, as far as you'll get from being notable, especially if they are published on websites connected to the small local church (12000 members) making them non independent sources. All the Caleb foundation related ones are similarly non-independent sources. Numerous "references" e.g. this one, this one and this one are primary sources about other people, and working as an assistant to a politician satisfies neither WP:GNG nor WP:POLITICIAN. The other sources don't address him directly in any detail, several don't even mention him at all (e.g. this or this) or are non-reliable, like the sluggerotoole blog.
Ignoring advice to find sources which address him directly in detail, you appear to have decided that the way to keep this article, besides canvassing othereditors, is to pad it out with whatever minor trivia you can find. From long experience of deletion debates, I can tell you that that certainly isn't the right approach. Wikipedia considers the quality of sources provided, not their quantity, I've seen articles with 120 "references" bite the dust in an AFD and the McConaghie article certainly falls into that bracket. Valenciano (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am reluctantly coming to the view that I will never persuade you, Valenciano, since you have shown such determination to keep mention of this individual - with or without reference to the matter not mentioned in the article - out of Wikipedia; just as you strove to suppress references to the sex offences against children of one of the very few elected TUV reps in the TUV article. However, more balanced editors may take the view that the article as it now stands has addressed every single criticism levelled at it by you. It is about an immensely influential individual who for years was one of the key figures in the nexus between DUP politics and the evangelical movement - a highly significant element in the political life of Northern Ireland, regardless of the number of members of any of the particular denominations involved. The article is neutral in tone, more than adequately sourced, and does not, as you keep failing to understand, engage BLP:CRIME because it does not even mention crime; the subject definitely satisfies WP:GNG, and you cannot seriously contend that McConaghie hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so as to be "presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article"; WP:BLP1E clearly doesn't apply to an article that deals with multiple events over at least 15 years of a career of political and clerical activism, and doesn't mention the "one event" that you allude to; he may or may not meet WP:POLITICIAN (I reckon he does) but he doesn't have to, and not meeting that particular criterion is not a reason for deletion. You keep wheeling out these points even though they have already been dealt with above. Brocach (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with your keep, I prefer to keep my views on Mr McConaghie to myself and I think you are mistaken about anyone trying to hang inappropriate allegations on Mr McConaghie. There are no allegations against him in the article. Certain allegations exist, but if you take the trouble to look beyond Wikipedia, you will find that they did not originate with his political opponents - quite the contrary.
The oddest thing about this nomination for deletion is that it was made within a few hours of the article having been created, and rests largely on objections that have been amply addressed as the piece developed, plus the bizarre reasoning that at some point in the future someone might put something into it that contravened some Wikipedia policy. Brocach (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that since the last of the 'delete' votes was recorded, at 12:56 on 25 December, the article has become five times longer and has seven times as many sources. Every single objection raised to it by all three individuals who wanted it deleted has been addressed in full either by additional materials, sources or here in the talk page. Brocach (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that you have again ignored what people have told you. Padding out a non notable subject by adding "sources" which consist of blogs, non independent self published sources, primary sources, trivial mentions and ones where the subject isn't even mentioned do not demonstrate notability. Even the solitary keep vote other than your own acknowledges that the core references in the article may be contrary to WP:BLP policy. Since 25 December nothing has changed, the only refs covering this person in any detail are about the alleged crime and thus contrary to WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Valenciano (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simply repeating unfounded claims that the article breaches WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS does not make it so. No crime is mentioned in the article, and the content establishes the notability of the subject beyond any doubt. Brocach (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2013 (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.
More