Glenshane

Edit

Please note that this edit is on the wrong page. You need to make the edit on this page as a new segment below otherwise it will be missed. I can move it for you, but I will advise that the current comment you have made is not compatible with Wikipedia and consists of personal attacks and a rather bizarre complaint that he wasn't from Northern Ireland, so I would recommend writing a new Keep objection.

I would also advise you to read up on a few of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. reliable sources, WP:NOTABILITY being two main ones. Additionally you should also read WP:CANVAS, WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:VANDALISM before you start making accusations on other editors. You should also read Guide to Deletion for information on how to participate in the process. Canterbury Tail talk 14:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I am a person who consumes wikipedia rather than a contributor. However I did feel today that I was compelled to comment on this proposed deletion.

I do not know who you are or where you are from but I was concerned that you may have been a troll based on your negative response to a very non controversial page. However I now must thank you for advising that I have submitted my concerns to the wrong page.

I can only assume that you have some dispute with the author of the article and all I would ask is that you do not vandalise this page in your dispute with him.

Thank you for the links which you have provided. I can confirm that Seamus Hasson is a person of NOTABILITY and I was delighted to discover that his story was so easily accessible only yesterday and now to discover today that it has been proposed for deletion, deeply troubles me. In respect of your additional links - WP:CANVAS, WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:VANDALISM - I can advise that I am only defending the article from deletion and can assure you that I am not canvassing but merely exercising my democratic right to articulate a different perspective. Glenshane (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I am a long term editor here on Wikipedia, and have no quarrel with the editor of the article. However Wikipedia has guidelines and policies that need to be followed. We have policies and guidelines on notability for inclusion and sourcing, and it is the onus and responsibility of the person adding an edit to provide those references and proof of notability. We also don't allow political nonsense such as refusing to name Northern Ireland and pretend it's in the country of Ireland and the like. Additionally on Wikipedia you do not have democratic rights, that's not how this works. We do not vote, we make arguments and policy based reasoning and it is the weight of those and reliable sources that define things. So the mass of meatpuppets coming through from obvious online canvasing on the talk page means zero to the outcome of a deletion discussion (and if it's proven that they're connected with another editor could result in them getting blocked.)

As for the article, you are completely welcome to make policy and guidelines based arguments for the keeping of the article, I have no problems with being wrong. However you need to back it up with sources of your claims. To date all claims are Wp:PRIMARY sources and people going "don't delete, it's not controversial" which is not an argument (not that those article talk page arguments mean anything as they were contesting a PROD that has been removed.) Canterbury Tail talk 15:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I also have to ask, where was information on this article posted that has caused people to come to the talk page? It's clearly not just someone didn't like it, it's obviously been posted somewhere to attract this kind of attention. Canterbury Tail talk 15:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no great conspiracy I can assure you. The original Wikipedia article was shared and was a delight to read but now when you access the page there is a banner at the top saying that it is under consideration for deletion which was why I responded and when I did I seen that I was not the only one. Glenshane (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)