Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caia Park 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   delete. Consensus seems fairly clear that this fails WP:NOT. While User:Anarchangel has helpfully provided a long list of sources, sources on their own do not defeat NOT#NEWS objections - and as User:Chris Neville-Smith has indicated, WP:PERSISTENCE is not met by them. Ironholds (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Caia Park Riots

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm nominating this because Wikipedia is not the news. These riots certainly happened, but the article doesn't demonstrate that they had any lasting impact on the town of Wrexham, nor any political impact of note. Szzuk (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Indeed a case of NOTNEWS. No indication this has any lasting impact and there are literally tens of thousands of demonstrations around the world each year. 22:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, appears to be quite trivial. Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Normally we consider news events on enduring notability. These riots continued to get coverage after the event, but it was mostly routine things such as trials and sentencing of the offenders, and most of the coverage was local. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Were there 16 local sources? Perhaps 4 reporting once a day for four days? At any rate, it got 15 national news stories. Next time, try searching for search terms related to the news story, rather than just the title of the article.
 * BBC Newsnight - Jun 26, 2003
 * This story on its own gives the story credibility for assessing notability right away, as Newsnight is specifically listed in WP:INDEPTH "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK)."
 * The Guardian - Jun 24, 2003
 * BBC News UK - Jun 24, 2003
 * BBC News - Jun 24, 2003
 * Telegraph.co.uk - Jun 25, 2003
 * BBC News - Jun 25, 2003 UK
 * BBC News - Jun 26, 2003
 * Daily Post North Wales - Jun 26, 2003
 * The Guardian - Jun 26, 2003
 * The Guardian - Jun 24, 2003
 * BBC News - Jun 24, 2003
 * ic Liverpool - Jun 24, 2003
 * BBC News - Jun 24, 2003
 * BBC News - Jun 25, 2003
 * Sky News - Jun 24, 2003
 * There were only two news stories related to the title as it stands, which you can view by hitting the 'News' button above.
 * And one for "Wrexham riots"
 * Kuwait News Agency
 * Anarchangel (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with this is WP:PERSISTENCE. All of these news reports were reported at the time, and yes, it got the attention of national news outlets, but it was the coverage after the event that was thin on the ground. (Incidentally, a lot of stories on the BBC News site are in the local news sections. It's debatable as to whether URLs starting news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_east/ cont as national coverage.) It was the coverage afterwards that was mostly local/routine in scope. I can see the arguments in favour of keeping, but my opinion is that's not quite enough. Should this article be kept, this needs properly citing, otherwise it's going to be an easy target for stirrers of racial tension. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2011 (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.