Talk:Arrest of Gerry Adams

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus of this discussion was to merge. — O'Dea (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Why is this not just a section in Gerry Adams? I don't know exactly how merges work, but informally at least, I propose that this article should be merged into that one. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It should be. Was surprised to see it linked separately from another article. RashersTierney (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This should be merged into Gerry Adams as its notability is not established. The arrest is, for now, merely a passing news event that can be described adequately in the Gerry Adams article. It does not yet deserve an entry in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. — O'Dea (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Support merger. This can be adequately covered in the main article. Valenciano (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Also support merger. Snappy (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't support a merger. This is a high-profile developing story, which can—and should—be covered in greater detail in its own article than it can be on the Gerry Adams or Murder of Jean McConville pages. — Zcbeaton (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I also don't support merger. The Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland v. Liam Adams case is perhaps a useful precedent here. It is referred to in the Gerry Adams article, but has a stand-alone article of its own.Miles Creagh (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a newspaper. We don't necessarily need a blow-by-blow account of Adams' current detention. The case with his brother is different; Gerry Adams isn't a prime mover in that case at all, so a developed section of his article about it would be a dramatic tangent. There's nothing here that's not about either GA personally or the existing murder case. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a political dimension to this event that is further-reaching than the scope of either the Gerry Adams or Murder of Jean McConville pages. — Zcbeaton (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There is considerable speculation as to the significance of this event, but so far that is all. Only time will really tell its importance. So far there is very little of substance. Lots of predictable comments from Adam's supporters (who don't like it), and equally from his political opponents (who think its great, 'no-one above the law' etc). The commentary, which is the bulk of this article, tells us little of encyclopaedic value. RashersTierney (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The events cannot be covered entirely in the Gerry Adams article. It is a major international occurrence, Adams has been the leader of his political party since 1983, is a sitting MP in the Irish parliament and there are all kinds of political ramifications already being spoken of. It is an unprecedented event. Note that other "arrest of" articles are in existence so that this is not a new development, see Indictment and arrest of Augusto Pinochet, Arrest of Ali Hasan, Arrest of Maria Lourdes Afiuni. This is at least as comparable to some of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.76.16 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You are not comparing like with like. The 'Indictment and arrest of Augusto Pinochet' was split off from the main article due to its length. That is not the case here. The other two articles alluded to are 'stand-alone', ie the arrests are notable even though the subjects apparently are not and so do not have dedicated biography articles. RashersTierney (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Pinochet analogy seems sound to me. The substance of the allegations against the two are even similar - both Adams and Pincochet are accused of running death squads in the early seventies. Miles Creagh (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So why not let this develop the way the Pinochet one did - first as part of the subject's main article, then separately once there was enough material to need a separate page? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, we already have this article on the go. I'd say give it a couple of days, see what happens. If he's released without charge, I'd be more inclined to the view that it can be covered in the Gerry Adams artiicle. If he's charged, different story.Miles Creagh (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

We can't keep articles around on the offchance that they *might* become notable in their own right. They need to be notable now and it's too early to see if this is anything more than WP:NOTNEWS. In this case, we can cover these events adequately in the main article and redirect this there. Should this become notable in the future, it's a simple matter of reverting the redirect and building on that. Valenciano (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Some editors above refer to the significance of the event. Of course it is significant. But all that has happened is that he is talking to the police, his arrest has been extended, and people have reacted. These elements of the story can be described efficiently in Adams's own article. If the event balloons into an extended major narrative in the coming days or weeks, it might justify its own article. It is important to note that saying the article should be merged is neither an attack on Adams, nor downplaying the significance of the event, nor an attempt to minimise the narrative or brush it aside. The proposal to merge merely says that all of this can be dealt with in an existing article. Those arguing for a standalone article are not advancing their case merely by pointing out the significance of the event. That is not the point. No compelling case has yet been made for a separate article, or why dealing with this in Gerry Adams is inadequate. — O'Dea (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

As Adams has now been freed without charge, I have no further objection to the proposed merger. This episode can be adequately covered in the Gerry Adams article. Miles Creagh (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the points made above and support a merger.Filastin (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Merge, not notable enough after G.A. released without charge.--Darius (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge. Adams has been released, although this could still become significant if his arrest has political ramifications, but it's far too early to say whether it will or not. This is Paul (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Merge It's an event in his life, but not a notable event in itself.  Randall Bart   Talk  22:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.