Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Shishou 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   merge to Xu Yuangao incident. Merge has already been done so let's close it that way. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 Shishou riot

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete: Non-encyclopedic news event; should not be included in Wikipedia. mhking (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: A 40,000 people riot is encyclopedic and historically relevant. Benjwong (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (because of extensive news coverage in both Western and Chinese media) and merge with Xu Yuangao incident, a wiki that already discusses the same riot. Xu Yuangao incident should be retitled Tu Yuangao incident, since the dead man's surname (涂) is read Tu, not Xu (Xu would be 徐). Madalibi (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep or Merge with Xu Yuangao incident. Massive Coverage even inside China (Sohu& Sina-China). Outside of China, The Guardian, Radio Free Asia...just to list a few. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Tu Yuangao incident. Arilang   talk  21:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge: I am going to keep and merge it. Benjwong (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now and come back to AfD in a few weeks/months if it seems warranted by then. In any given year there are tens of thousands of "群体性事件" in China; the ones that get immediate media coverage (because journalists or a guy with a cameraphone happened to post online about it and the topic went viral) may not be the historically significant ones, and conversely there may be clearly encyclopedic ones whose significance isn't recognised until later and which remain unknown to most people until years after the event.
 * In short, it is not possible to judge the "historical significance" of an event either positively or negatively within a week after its occurrence. So we shouldn't be scrambling to delete this article ... but nor should the creator have been scrambling to create it in the first place either. WP:TROUTs all around. cab (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Event of historical significance. AxiomShell (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have any actual historians found it worthy of non-trivial coverage yet? cab (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2009 (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.