Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Qatif uprising


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Qatif conflict. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

2011 Qatif uprising

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a WP:CFORK or perhaps a spinout of 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests. That page covers the subject, but the spinout is not required and the events in Qatif are not independently notable. The sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY being news reports, and descriptions of the events. There was indeed a series of clashes in Qatif, but these were all part of the 2011-2012 Saudi protests and there is no evidence in sources that the Qatif clashes were given exception coverage nor particular analysis outside of that. Secondary sources do not cover this subject outside of the larger Saudi Arabian protests subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge and, if so, to which target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Qatif conflict 2601:204:C901:B740:D8FD:8ADF:C0DB:A03A (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Blablubbs (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep has had a lot of news reports. Newspaper articles are secondary sources. It had a WP:Lasting effect as a start of a war. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What articles are we talking about? Newspaper reports are, in fact, generally primary. See WP:PRIMARY and especially note d. There is no evidence here of any secondary sources, and certainly not of an lasting effects. If there were, there would be secondary sources. None have been shown to exist. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Newspaper articles are secondary sources. They are not directly involved. And see also that Mainstream newspapers are listed under Reliable sources. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the link I provided. If a newspaper article is an account of an event, it is primary. Articles may be secondary in some cases where they are not merely recounting an event, and are not close to the event, but to demonstrate that, you would need to present the article you think is secondary so that the source can be reviewed and discussed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t see in your link that newspapers are primary sources. I think you mean the sentence An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event. So yes, an eye witness report is a primary source. But a newspaper report is a secondary source. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I specifically directed you to noted d. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents." A contemporary newspaper report of an event is a primary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wel you are not referring to the Wikipedia guidance, but to the note section with a definition of a Universitey and didn’t add the first sentence. The first sentence is green (so an eyewitness report of a journalist or other person or the opinion of en expert.) Yes, these can indeed be found in newspapers, but that is not the main aim of a newspaper articles. Read for instance at Primary source: green. Still note that what I stated above that in the main guideline of Wikipedia newspapers are listed under secondary sources. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the main body says that newspapers are generally reliable sources. It does not claim they are secondary. If a newspaper article is written about an event immediately after that event it is a primary source. If you don't know that, then you have some reading to do. As I stated, an article might be a secondary source if it is not just a contemporary account. At this point no such sources have been shown to exist. So we have no secondary sources at all. If you want to discuss a particular article, we can but simply asserting that there are newspaper articles is not evidence of meeting GNG, because the accounts, as per the nom. statement, are WP:PRIMARY and thus do not count. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be better to simply link to WP:PRIMARYNEWS: most news stories are considered primary sources. There are cases where they can be secondary, but they involve historical perspective or later synthesis of other sources (often news articles themselves). An example is an article about a battle that has just happened (primary) versus a war retrospective years later that uses that frontline reporting as a source (secondary). Your average news article, such as those linked here, are clearly of the primary variety. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - As a note to the closer, it is regrettable that participation here is low, and for that reason I would suggest that a redirect to Qatif conflict might be a suitable WP:ATD. The !vote for a merge to that point has been struck as a sock, but that article is the relevant one with the orimary topic. A redirect would preserve page history, despite there being no evidence of independent notability here. Should it become notable in the future, the redirect could then be expanded to an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge - Fails GNG but could add value to Qatif conflict. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge to Qatif_conflict. There is not enough coverage, or data, for an article.  The relevant information fits nicely under Qatif conflict without distorting the article. The resultant redirect adequately insures access. --Bejnar (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2023 (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.