Talk:Dungiven landmine and gun attack

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 September 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Northern Ireland Low‑importance

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Irish republicanism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

County Londonderry

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Derry/Londonderry - "Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles. Do not deviate from this merely because the subject relates to a particular side of the political divide." Alekksandr (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Since the keep voters failed to provide any evidence this meets WP:NEVENT, this should be merged into the chronology article where there are hundreds of simiilar incidents. FDW777 (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot relitigate the AFD here. That is why I rolled back your merge which you attempted after the AFD closed. The decision was Keep. You however are entirely within your rights to relist the article for deletion. Necrothesp Meanderingbartender 4meter4 Buckshot06 (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Past AFD is irrelevant to whether this article can be merged or not. Please provide evidence it meets WP:NEVENT, which was asserted without evidence at the AFD. FDW777 (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are playing procedural games and wasting my and others time. If the AFD had closed as 'merge,' your actions might have been appropriate. Right now you are trying to game the system, sneaking a merge past after an WP:IDONTLIKEIT AFD vote. Relist for deletion -- that's your only honorable option at this point. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, a past AFD does not prevent a future merge. We both know a second AFD will be procedrually closed as a speedy keep, so stop filibustering and provide actual evidence this meets WP:NEVENT. FDW777 (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FDW777, this is foul behaviour on your part. As Buchshot06 laid out, you are wasting everyone's time. Stop throwing a tantrum because the vote didn't go the way you wanted it to. Meanderingbartender (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simply wrong. I considered it a waste of my time refuting incorrect points made at the AFD at the time, since it would not have changed the outcome. So per WP:MERGE, I am continuing the process here. FDW777 (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example you said The attack was notable as it received significant coverage at the time, this is completely at odds with WP:NEVENT regarding routine news coverage. I further note the significant coverage at the time currently in the article is a New York Times article from the same day which, apart from the headline, says only The soldiers were, killed by a landmine that destroyed a jeep near Dungiven, in County Lon donderry, army headquarters said. That is not significant coverage. FDW777 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly shows that you have failed to do the most basic of searches for sources before submitting it to AFD. On newspapers.com, there are over 250 articles that have articles just on the attack in the days after. Most, I will admit, are reprints of news agencies articles, yet that shows widespread coverage of the event. All of the British and Irish papers had coverage. In addition, you are ignoring that the arrest and sentencing received coverage across the globe. All of this could have been discussed at the AFD, but you failed to add anything; instead, you are attempting to rehash this here where it might get less attention, which would allow you to delete the article via a merge. Meanderingbartender (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly shows you haven't read WP:NEVENT, if you are continuing to hang your hat on newspaper reports at the time of the incident. FDW777 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And no it couldn't have been discussed at the AFD, since by the time I saw the replies it had been compromised beyond the point of repair. No amount of words in the AFD would have resulted in a delete result after several keep replies, so I chose not to waste time even bothering. FDW777 (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The result was a clear keep, not a merge. If you didn't want to "waste time" at the time in the appropriate place then don't waste time now arguing your view is superior to the others who commented. It isn't. Accept the result and move on. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please could someone provide references that are more than routine coverage. The newspaper reports are little more than regurgitations of the MOD press release, explicitly defined as not establishing notability. Lost Lives is also routine coverage, since they cover every single death during the Troubles the inclusion of these deaths does not establish the notability of the event. 1972 And The Ulster Troubles 'A Very Bad Year is, as the title suggests, a book covering pretty much everything that occured in 1972. As such, the inclusion of these deaths does not establish notability, and the coverage is particularly trivial as well. The so-called notable event does not even merit an entry in the index, unlike the Claudy bombs, Bloody Friday and Bloody Sunday all of which have their own entry in the index and are convered in significant depth in the book. FDW777 (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wasting everyone's time. The AfD clearly showed a consensus to Keep the article, not merge. Move onto something constructive.--ObtuseAngles (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. The AfD showed a clear desire to keep this article. Stop trying to circumvent the process. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Afd was full of misleading statements since refuted, and the result does not prevent a future merge. So why not address the points raised, or are you incapable of doing so? FDW777 (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FWD777. Unfortunately, his points weren't made in the original AfD discussion. If such an attack had happened in Britain, or happened today, it would clearly be noteworthy enough for an article. But there were hundreds of attacks like this in Northern Ireland during the conflict, many resulting in three or more deaths. Some drew significant lasting coverage, but this one did not. ~Asarlaí 11:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As above, once there had been several worthless "keep" votes at the Afd I decided further posts from me there would have been a waste of time at that point, since they would have been unlikely to achieve a consensus to delete at that point. FDW777 (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we have process on Wikipedia. The process was followed. It went against your opinion. If you object to that and therefore didn't want to bother to engage with it then I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. Not really sure why you're so keen to have this article deleted anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you've no actual argument against the merge then? FDW777 (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The AfD decioded to keep, not merge. Please stop trying to circumvent process. It's tiresome. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article should be re-nominated for merging into Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions (1970–1979), this time with FDW777's arguments laid out. This is one of many Troubles articles made by a banned user and their sockpuppets. Most of them were about non-notable bombings/shootings, poorly-written, poorly-referenced, and made up mainly of irrelevant details on the 'background' and 'aftermath'. Some of them have been saved by other editors, but a lot of these non-notable articles remain. ~Asarlaí 20:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe spend your energy improving them rather than running around tediously trying to redirect or merge them. Wouldn't that be more productive? I will be undoing all of your edits this week anyway once I get the time. Such a boring and negative approach.--ObtuseAngles (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I and other Wikipedians have done what we could with the articles made by this editor (and their sockpuppets). I recently worked to improve Craigavon mobile shop killings, Top of the Hill bar shooting, Strand Bar bombing, Altnaveigh landmine attack and others. But most of their Troubles articles are doomed to be permastubs, because they're about non-notable incidents as far as the Troubles go.
Why would you re-add the unsourced, poorly-sourced and irrelevant content I removed from a dozen articles? I find it odd and worrying that a brand new editor would threaten to do that. Why not spend your own energy improving them? If their notability can be established then the notability tags can be removed. ~Asarlaí 22:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do intend improving them and adding reference and sources, that is why I said I will do it when I get time.--ObtuseAngles (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving them fair opportunity to actually come up with an argument, instead of relying on nonsense claims that because x number of soldiers died it's notable or that twenty words in a New York Times article is "significant coverage". Your bad arguments in the past are meaningless, since they do not stop a future merge discussion. FDW777 (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]