Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigoted woman incident


 * 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. I know this is an early close, but there's an overwhelming consensus forming that this article is counter to WP:ONEEVENT & WP:NOTNEWS. The early close is for the blindingly-obvious WP:BLP concerns associated with an article named "Bigoted woman incident" and a lack of coverage depth. Should this incident evolve into something of greater import, the article can be recreated at a more appropriate name with the necessary context provided by reliable citations. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Bigoted woman incident

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:ONEEVENT or WP:NOTNEWS Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, fairly clearly fails WP:NOT and the test given in WP:EVENT. Ironholds (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, I'm not an expert on the relevant wikipedia policies. All I know is that this incident will not be very notable in a few days time (cf. Prescott punch incident) and a small section in another election related article is all that is needed. Abc30 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This might deserve one paragraph in some article related to the election, but per WP:ONEEVENT it doesn't deserve its own article, and certainly it doesn't need to be there as an excuse to redirect the woman's name to an article whose title says "bigoted woman". — Gavia immer (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge, not withstanding ABC30's ability to forecast the future, this has at least the potential to be significant. Several political bloggers/national journalists have commented it could be significant historically, and on that basis better to wait and see. At some point may be wise to merge in somewhere else. Leonig Mig (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Potential" to be significant? we are not a crystal ball; we do not keep articles because they "might" be valuable in the future. Ironholds (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case you should be able to see the inverse applies per my original comment. Leonig Mig (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That we should keep an article because we cannot prove that it will not be notable? Hells, under that test, any 11 year old who writes an article about how she likes power rangers should be kept. After all, there's no proof that she won't be notable! In article content, once an objection has been raised, the onus is on the creator and supporters to prove that it is notable. Ironholds (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the front page of every UK news site at the moment. The fact that this is getting wall to wall coverage is its claim to significance. The fact some wikiguy "reakons" everyone will have forgotten about it in a week is the reason to think its not. By the way Wikipedia is full of pages written by 11 year olds about PowerRangers and every other issue under the sun. Leonig Mig (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine maybe I'm wrong Leon Mig. What I think doesn't matter though. Look at all the other votes for deletion here! Abc30 (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is because you are all delete obsessives. The creative people are off creating articles, not arguing on process pages. (BTW, I am the exception the proves the rule) Leonig Mig (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So now you're going for personal slurs? Nice. Speaking as somebody who has created 19 pieces of featured content, 31 pieces of good content and over 150 DYKs, I am a creative person. And I'm off creating articles as well. Ironholds (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Leonid: WP:NOT "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." - WP:PERSISTENCE "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article" - WP:CRYSTAL "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". Ironholds (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you and it doesn't matter as WP is ruled by consensus and you have the consensus view. But yes I do think the delete/rules obsessives are ruining the platform, and I am entitled to my view. Leonig Mig (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your view, yes; and I am entitled to tell you that stereotyping anyone who votes "delete" as some form of obsessive wrecking the wiki is, to me, a content editor, offensive. I am also entitled to tell you that using rules != wikilawyering; claiming they don't apply is, however, usually stupidity. Ironholds (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See also WP:109PAPERS and (in re PowerRangers) WP:WAX. JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure if I know as many WP policies as you I could find a reason to delete the Jesus article.Leonig Mig (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:109PAPERS and WP:WAX are references to essays (expressing the editor's opinion) not policy. Rd232 talk 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are essays, which express sensible and relevant arguments, and citing them saves me writing it all out at length here. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean you shouldn't cite them as shorthand for your opinion - not at all. But Leonig seemed to think they were policy. See also current discussion at WP:VPD. Rd232 talk 17:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooh, witty! So anyone opposed to you is wikilawyering, and the rules don't apply to articles any more? Ironholds (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect - Perhaps worth a brief mention at Premiership of Gordon Brown, but certainly not notable in its own right. See also this discussion which I opened in anticipation of edits regarding this topic. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. PhilKnight (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to United Kingdom general election, 2010, with perhaps a brief mention at Gordon Brown or Premiership of Gordon Brown or Strong Delete. A pretty clear example of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOT and WP:ONEEVENT. -  Chrism  would like to hear from you 16:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Per nom, not notable as a separate article. Previous related article was deleted this morning ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT. A trivial incident. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge per WP:NOTNEWS. However, this should be mentioned in the articles that mention the elections.--RM (Be my friend) 16:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. -- Neil N   talk to me  16:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Currently big news; it may turn out to be a storm in a teacup, it may not - but Wikipedia is never finished and in the (reasonably likely imo) event that this is a game changer it will be good to have some content to start with. 86.176.111.239 (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously. At the very most it warrants a redirect to United Kingdom general election, 2010 but I'm not even convinced by that. – iride  scent  16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete nobody will either care nor remember this incident next week. A classic case about a non-event by a non-notable being blown out of proportion by the media.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete NOTNEWS, ONEEVENT and any number of other policies. One incident that was extremely trivial and will have no long-term notability. This will be out of the headlines in a day or 2 and certainly won't be remembered for years to come (except by tabloid newspaper editors). I object to redirecting or merging anywhere per the same rationale. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per above -- Snowded' TALK  17:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I also oppose redirecting or merging. JohnCD (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Right now, it's ONEEVENT; created too soon. It's very possible though that it will be a game-changer which ends up tipping the election out of hung parliament territory into Conservative majority. Notable much, if that happens? Trouble is, it's too soon to tell, so we're WP:CRYSTALballing. Userfy or incubate? Rd232 talk 17:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gordon Brown or Premiership of Gordon Brown. News sources are calling this the most pivotal moment of the campaign so far, so it at least deserves a mention. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Africa, Asia and the UN  ─╢ 17:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS. Passing news story; tomorrow they'll probably be talking about something else. Zero evidence of long-term notability. Robofish (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivial news blip, maybe worth a mention in an appropriate article, but no need for any sort of redirect from this term. I can't help but be reminded of 's penchant for bizarre non-news of the hour. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2010 (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.