Deletion of Killings at Coolacrease

Comment: Wow, yet another single-purpose account pitching in here.  Ukobserver is not a new editor, so he/she is probably unaware of wikipedia policies, which is why every one of the arguments made by Ukobserver directly opposes wikipedia policies.Firstly, wikipedia's a standard is not truth, it's verifiability (see ). "Setting the record straight" by "discrediting of the RTE programme" is a blatant breach of .  Finally, you may or may or may be right that the RTE programme was a pile of nonsense, but it's not up to you or me use to use |original research to prove or disprove that point; wikipedia is a tertiary source, and it reports the analyses which have already been published in secondary sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:NOR)

Comment: Potatoswatter, please take another look at the article. The list looks impressive, because it includes lots of references to trivial points (in sources which are highly unlikely to menton these killings at all). When it comes to the core of the story, the only source which comes anywhere close to being a reliable secondary sources is the articles in the local paper by Philip McConway, who is a postgraduate studenthttp://www.tcd.ie/history/postgradcon.php. An article by a postgrad in a low-circulation local newspaper is not the sort of peer-reviewed publication that fits the best standard of reliable source, per .Beyond that, we have lots of primary sources (irrelevant to notability), and two books by involved parties; that hardly amounts to notability per .As to your suggestion that I should be "explaining the poor historical foundations to the readers" ... are you serious? You appear to be asking me to write a  of original commentary, in flagrant breach of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOTE||WP:ESSAY||WP:NOR)

Comment: I am not saying that nothing happened there, just that there are inadequate reliable sources to support an article.  The rest of your comment is bizarre; if pointing out a lack of reliable secondary sources was itself original research, then  would be a meaningless policy. Please read #Burden_of_evidence, which clearly says that it is the responsibility of editors adding material to demonstrate that it is properly sourced
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:V)

Comment: I think I'm uninvolved. I certainly think the article could be improved in any number of ways, but I don't think deletion is the answer here. The incident has been made somewhat notable by the TV show, but other sources do seem to exist. That being said, the article is far from perfect, and it could require a lot of work to cut out the |OR from the appropriate information
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)