Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Rinkeby riots


 * 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 keep. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

2010 Rinkeby riots

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A minor event that lacks encyclopedic relevance or long-term societal impact. Does not meet WP:NEVENT. Significant RS coverage not found. WP:NOTNEWS applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - per fact that this was part of a bigger issue of riots in Swedish suburbs at that time and present. Good sources. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sources can obviously be found in abundance in the Swedish press, but this needs to be part of a larger article on social problems and violence in Swedish suburbs (or something like that). In isolation, an article like this has no place in an encyclopaedia. --Hegvald (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable for stand alone article; briefly mentioned in the Rinkeby article already and a sentence or two which is RS cited could be added therein. Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not really notable outside of just "immigrant-related crime." I don't think it needs its own page, but I agree that it could be briefly mentioned in the Rinkeby article. Kamalthebest (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I did a modest expand, source.  Riot was widely covered at the time (in 2010 a riot in Sweden was novel and shocking) and widely covered again in the context of the 2017 Rinkeby riots and Trump's remarks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * added an empathetic perspective on these riots form recent book by nonviolent social justice advocate George Lakey here: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that Lakey may be correct about this riot by immigrant youth being the first such riot in Sweden.  Certainly it is part a growing series of immigrant neighborhood riots in Sweden, and as the apparant earliest in this series, it gains significance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Lakey doesn't say that it was the first in Sweden, not even that it was the first in Stockholm, only that it was "in recent years". This article on the Swedish Wikipedia list a number of riots, though not all are youth riots. The first such that I found was The student riot in Lund 1793 and there have been a number of notable riots in recent years. So, there is no notability for being the first of series. Sjö (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * wow, there have been a lot or recent riots by immigrant youth in Sweden. at least as far back as the 2009 Malmö Davis Cup riots.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable event. Sjö (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that not only academic books such as Artifacts and Allegiances: How Museums Put the Nation and the World on Display, University of California Press by Peggy Levitt; but also more popular accounts such as  Viking Economics: How the Scandinavians Got It Right-and How We Can, Too, by activist George Lakey, Melville House Publishing, are usually regarded as strong arguments supporting notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And, certainly, international news coverage of a riot 7 years after it happened meets an important standard of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Ongoing coverage during rioting in Rinkeby in 2013 and again in 2017  sparked renewed coverage of the 2010 riots by press around the world.  The fact that thousands of people were prompted to visit  this page at the time of the 2017 Rinkeby riots shows the utility to our users of keeping articles on riots past.  In fact, noting that this page was created not in 2010, but in 2013 makes it highly probably that this riot came to creator's attention due to the fact that this 2010 event was widely covered by the media in 2013.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete A notable riot is something bigger (bigger events, bigger coverage in media) like 2013 Stockholm riots. So, as per "Wikipedia is not news", I think we should delete this page and add the information to "background" of "2013 Stockholm riots". Kavas (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We follow sources in determining notability; in this case, news coverage in English-language searches has been global, with a major wave of coverage of this 2010 even in February 2017. In addition to coverage in sources like the book discussed above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion to "delete this page and add the information to" is irregular. Normal procedure would be Redirect and Merge in order to WP:PRESERVE both the usefulness of the search term "2010 Rinkeby riots", (gSearch: ),  I continue to think article should be kept on the grounds of coverage that has been global, ongoing and in-depth, but if it is to be merged, a better target might be to a title like: Rinkeby riots, 2010, 2013, 2017 accomplished by merging this article with 2017 Rinkeby riots.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I change my vote to Redirect and Merge after reading this. Kavas (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * just a point of etiquette: when changing an iVote at AfD, it is usual to your original iVote . Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep for the time being, but I think this content should be merged with other similar articles under some appropriate title. --Hegvald (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that I have added three blue-linked analysts giving post-game analysis of this riot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the mention in the book is about one sentence; the other two analysts appear to be discussing the immigrant rioting in general, not this specific event, unless I'm mistaken. I still don't see how this particular riot stands out and why it should have a stand-alone entry. To preserve article history, perhaps it could be redirected to 2017 Rinkeby riots? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Both Levitt and Quinn cite this riot specifically, and discuss it in the context of immigrant rioting not "in general" but very specifically in Sweden in recent years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:HEYMANN Although Nom and the early iVoters above saw a very brief article with 3 sources I have expanded the article significantly.  I did not attempt to find Swedisn sources, rather, the article is sourced ot international coverage of this riot the year it occurred, a second round of coverage in 2013, and a third in 2017, in addition to books.  I assume that an editor working in Swedish would find more discussion, but I do think that the article as it now stands passes all normal standards, and is, both encyclopedic and useful as documenting an early example of the problems of immigrant integration now confronting Sweden.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like something sourced and sufficiently notable. This page could be merged with 2017 Rinkeby riots if there are sources covering them as related events. My very best wishes (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets simplest of standards Cllgbksr (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2017 (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.