Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)
This story includes reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject, a condition of . There are also additional sources out there that I found with a very quick search, such as http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/16685418.html?dids=16685418:16685418&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+17%2C+1996&author=WILLIAM+D.+MONTALBANO&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&desc=IRA+Bombings+Cast+a+Pall+Over+St.+Patrick%27s+Day&pqatl=google here, http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/22791587.html?dids=22791587:22791587&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+09%2C+1996&author=&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&desc=No+one+hurt+in+London+blast&pqatl=google here and http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/22/world/ira-says-bomb-victim-was-a-guerrilla.html here. I agree that this article is bordering on , but when an article is on the borderline like that, I tend to ask myself this question: Is Wikipedia better off, or worse off, for having this article? In this case, I think it's better off. There is reason to believe that this article has room to grow and expand in the future (because there are other sources out there), and if someone wants to read about Edward O'Brien, I saw |why not? This is a comprehensive, paperless encyclopedia. As long as it's well-sourced and verifiable, what's the harm in having it
— User:Hunter, 14:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:IGNORE (Wikipedia:Notability)