Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Dubbo New Years Eve Riot


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. This is the coverage of a brief event, not of any historical significance. No chance of substantial sources. WP:NOT#NEWS applies. PeaceNT 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

2005 Dubbo New Years Eve Riot

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Notability is not asserted in article or suggested by sources. &mdash; dust mite  04:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: It is sourced, but it isn't important / notable. - Rjd0060 04:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Reliable sources are in the article and it was well written (although small), but this article fails WP:N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeanoJosh (talk • contribs) 05:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking 11:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete , sources indicate WP:NOT: "Routine news coverage ... not sufficient basis for an article". --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What degree of coverage do you feel would be necessary to warrant inclusion? Everyking 11:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Nine people arrested? Two police officers injured?  Earthshaking.  No less significant, I suppose than the drug roundup in Miller County where a bunch of people went to jail.  Notable?  That's a riot.  Mandsford 02:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have some level of arrests that need to be made or policemen injured that needs to be reached in order for riots to be notable? The way I see it, a riot is notable, even if only locally, and as long as we have the necessary sources there should be no problem with having an article. Arrests and injuries are not a very good way to assess notability; we should look at whether it was viewed as significant through news coverage. A riot in which nobody is injured or arrested is notable if it has been viewed as a significant event. Everyking 04:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No: and therein lies the problem with establishing the boundaries of notability. That's not to say that there is not a boundary, and that articles should not be placed on one or other side of it. I honestly think that riots such as this are relatively commonplace. We have enough problems with wikiholicism and wikicounts. Lord preserve us from the phenomenon of wikirioting, where participants seek to ensure that last night's disturbance is written up in the encyclopaedia. Meanwhile, though, I have changed my vote from delete to keep ... perhaps it is the context of the riot that assists in establishing notability - this one does seem to have been a big thing for Oz, whereas it sounds like an average friday night in many english towns. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Google convinces - against my expectations - that this was a widely enough reported event. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not news This is a Secret account 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not news, etc, etc. Unfortunately not too many Aussies on WP, they probably didn't catch this. Such a thing would not survive if it was an American event (ie Dinkytown riots) .:DavuMaya:. 21:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.