Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 London general election protest


 * 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. Clear consensus for deletion relative to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. North America1000 00:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 London general election protest

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:ONEEVENT, no "demonstrable long-term impact", no reason to keep. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC) I meant to use the policy WP:NOTNEWS, which firmly applies here. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEEVENT is not (despite its name) a policy regarding events, it is a policy regarding people. Policies which do actually relate to the notability of events which could be applied in this case as WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH. Furthermore although technically not a crime elements of the protest reached a stage where WP:N/CA could also be applied. This article should also be kept per WP:RAPID. Ebonelm (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, apologies for that. I had not included it in my initial talk page comment as I knew that, but I appear to have forgotten. Comment struck. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Can't see how this is notable. WP:NOTNEWS is probably the most relevant thing here. Number   5  7  20:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Notability (events), particularly WP:LASTING. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable nor newsworthy. A small and frankly predictable "protest" by a bunch of criminal-minded thugs. If it were considerably more substantial or in any way significant, it might warrant an article, but really an event like this needs to cross quite a high threshold to have an entire Wikipedia article of its own. Mind, if it were kept it should expound the disgusting vandalism to the war memorial as well as the unwarranted attacks on the police. I love the comment above by the only supporter of this article, "...technically not a crime..." - I think you'll find the protestors were committing a ton of crimes, hence why many were arrested. Don't make this a typical "drown out the delete request with technicalities" Wikipeida bun fight: it's obvious it should go. Let it go. Argovian (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please keep your analyses neutral and avoid using this space as a forum.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 07:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Especially since the published photos of the protest show rows of gleefully happy police with their batons raised. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable protest. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Another one of those small and unsuccessful protests blown up on social networks with "nobody is covering this, CENSORSHIP!". And before you ask, yes, right-wing groups make the same silly arguments too. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - the initial rationale for the nomination was a misreading of the Guardian source, which said only 100 involved. Others claim 1000+ involved. AusLondonder (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Absolutely not in breach of WP:NOTNEWS. 'As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events'. This article is not written as a news report or in a journalistic style. This article also meets WP:EVENTCRIT - 'Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analysed afterwards (as described below).' AusLondonder (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Argovian said it best. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to draft per WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. As of right now, not notable enough. If it garners news coverage more internationally and survives the next week, I'd be more inclined to say keep.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 07:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - good point, it has already had significant international attention, so quite a lot of sources exist alreadyAusLondonder (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you add them to the article to demonstrate its notability? I only saw The Guardian and BBC cited. Both good sources, but coverage is local.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 07:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment have now added international sources. Not all reliable sources, but establish notability (Euronews, ABC Australia, RT, Irish Independent and XinhuaAusLondonder (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete A non-notable event.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per rational of my WP:PROD and LadyLeitmotif who raised a good point, 100 hooligans vandalising a cenotaph or memorial is not a full scale riot or long term protest. Had some cheeky begger not removed my PROD we would not be debating this.-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  19:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, User:Lerdthenerd, why are you relying on 'LadyLeitmotif' as a more reliable source than the Guardian article? AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not, it's a good source but the coverage is too small, should this story gain more notice then it can have an article. My point wasn't the source but the facts, 100/1000 rioters vandalising a memorial is not news worthy.-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  16:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep : Large number of UK and global media sources. Clearly meets WP:GNG. I feel many editors are misinterpreting WP:NOTNEWS, which states'For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.' This is nothing of the sort, and was a noteworthy protest. WP:NOTNEWS makes absolutely crystal clear: 'As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events' AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , you don't get to !vote twice. The NOTNEWS sentence you quote refers to "significant current events", and what people are saying is that this was not significant. Also, read the whole of WP:GNG: the last bullet point says:
 * "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not..."
 * In other words, just being in all the papers is not necessarily enough. This is that "more in-depth discussion". JohnCD (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies about 'keep vote' twice. What criteria is used to classify 'significant'? I don't believe this article fails WP:NOTNEWS because an example given is 'routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia' - this clearly is on a different level. AusLondonder (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For "significant", WP:Notability (events) uses terms like "enduring historical significance" and "noted and sourced permanent effect"; but it's really a judgment call, and that's the question people here are giving (fairly unanimous) opinions on. JohnCD (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to 2015 election article - this has good info, the protest was well covered, and five police were injured. It doesn't meet the criteria though for its own article based on WP:EVENT (as I don't see any follow-up coverage or analysis - this is what we mean about depth of coverage). I think it should be appended to United Kingdom general election, 2015. If it pops back up in the news for some reason (they try to make a law you can't be on Downing Street for 24 hours after the election because of it, the 17 people arrested are charged with terrorism, etc etc) it can be recreated.  —Мандичка YO 😜 09:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge as above. (United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015.) Fails notability per WP:EVENT (no "enduring historical significance"; "national coverage" very small compared to election/formation of government or some other protests; it's received some "international coverage" as part of coverage of the election but not huge international coverage on the level of e.g. Ferguson protests; not "very widely covered in diverse sources"; no "lasting effect" or long duration of coverage). WP:EVENT overrides WP:GNG by specifying how events which receive coverage in multiple sources could still be non-notable. Notability_(events) suggests merging. The article is short and could easily be merged. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and failing WP:NEVENT criteria: routine news, no lasting effect, no persistence of coverage. Merge is inappropriate because there is no evidence this is even a significant protest and would therefore be deserving of even a short mention in the election article. The UK has 64.5 million people, nearly 8,500,000 of which live in the city limits of London.  There are over 5,300 people per square kilometer in London, and the largest estimate from an independent source for the size of this protest is "a couple of hundred people" [//www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-10/riots-erupt-in-london-against-re-election-of-david-cameron/6458098 by a Reuters photographer] and 200 people [//www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/09/anti-austerity-protesters-take-to-uk-streets-after-tory-election-victory by TheGuardian] for the results of a national election? &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  20:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete User:Padenton has summed it up well it is clearly not worthy of a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2015 (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.