Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Causes of the 2011 England 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. From what I can see, the content has already been almost directly merged into the main article. Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Causes of the 2011 England riots

 * – ( View AfD View log )

While eventually a WP:SUMMARY article on the causes of the riots might be needed, at this moment this article represents a WP:POVFORK to eliminate material concerning causes from the main article 2011 England riots. There is not enough material to justify this as a stand-alone article, nor is there a consensus in the main article to create a WP:SUMMARY fork. As it stands, it is also a WP:COATRACK magnet in which to hang WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. This article should be deleted, and the RS on the causes remain on the article on the riots themselves. Cerejota (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient content for a breakout article, adequately covered in 2011 England riots. WWGB (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I agree with most of the criticism made of this article. However, I think the subject currently falls between two stools - too much for the main article and too little for a separate article. Give it time. See if it can be whipped into shape. If not, I would delete it then (after copying the valuable stuff to the main article).  Yaris678 (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I get your point and agree to an extent, the problem is that until months or even years from now, all the sources for the causes will be highly partisan or news - making quality an issue. Essentially this article is a big red target poster saying "EDIT WAR HERE PLEASE" :). While so does the riot article itself, one article focuses the discussion, two articles on the same topic forks the discussion, hence the appellation POV fork. Could that make you reconsider? --Cerejota (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Incubate for the moment. I agree that over the next few weeks there's going to be enough analysis of this in reliable sources to warrant a separate article, but I don't think this is ready for the mainspace in the meantime.  Do not delete it, because in the final product we will need to preserve attribution.— S Marshall  T/C 08:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I second this position and argument.--Djjr (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge The BBC article demonstrates that good sources for this topic already exist. The topic might best be dealt with in the main article still but that would be a matter of merger not deletion.  Note that this is such a hot topic that editors of the main article complain of edit conflicts.  There is therefore some functional value in splitting the topic into appropriate sub-topics such as this. Warden (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This article does not seem to be about causes of the riots but about what some people want to blame for them. Various authors have their pet hates whether it be fragmented families, racist police, the education system, government cuts etc. and they have duly produced articles saying it is their own particular pet hate that is to blame. The title of the article is therefore misleading as it provides no analysis of the causes just of what people want to blame. Sometime around the end of the year there will be some articles appearing in sociological journals, but for now we might as well say it's all Jimbo's fault.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. So that it can become a real, quality article, as it should some day.  Right now it's just a bunch of OR, each POV constructed from, or of primary sources and statements by political operatives. When it comes time to create a real article from quality sources, the editors will never be able to get all of the initial junk out of there. I've seen this happen elsewhere.   So delete it so that they can build a real article when suitable quality secondary sources become available. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is the question on the many people's lips, why? Therefore I see this page as important, but it needs improving. Stevo1000 (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The causes of the riots are important, but this page should be improved, if not improved, should be merged with 2011 England riots
 * Delete. This is not an article on the causes of the riots, this is a collection of cherry-picked quotes from news articles about what various individuals said the causes of the riots were, often in the service of their own political gain. We don't have the scholarly or historical distance for an article like this yet. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - we already have an england riots 2011 article and i dont think this one is needed Tony (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2011 England riots for now. This information is mostly encyclopaedic but easily condensable into a few paragraphs and/or bullet points. Depending on how the reaction pans out, there may in the future be enough material for a stand-alone article, but at the moment this is just one of many reactions to the riots. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge back into main article.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete / Merge into main article. David (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't really get the POV argument. Present all the opinions and allow the reader to make up their own mind. Maybe rename to something like Debates on the causes of the 2011 England riots as some are a little fringe. Francium12  20:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because part of NPOV is WP:UNDUE - the bar for inclusion in a "debate" or "criticism" article not coming from a WP:SUMMARY, but rather created on an apparent whim of an editor, is basically a WP:POVFORK that forks the debate into separate article. So neutral presentation on a non-neutral article premise is to be deleted. This "debate" or "causes" should be in the main article, and discussed there, until real books and real research, rather than comentariat quotes or proxies for an editor's pov, are the available sources. As a news article, this would be timely, and would make a great WikiNews article with a little reworking, but this is not WikiNews, and we write encyclopedia articles, not news articles. --Cerejota (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - it's nothing more than a platform for OR and POV pushing. FactController (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see no reason in deleting this sufficient article. seems like wikipedians are in a deletion frenzy concerning this subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per FactController etc - an unencyclopaedic collection of random opinion, and no possibility of ever being anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Less POV and OR stuff. It needs to be fleshed out to.Wipsenade (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Way too early for anybody to know the causes of an unfinished event. Besides, it's just OR and POV and conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.28 (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While it is too early to know the causes of the event, this article is about documenting the encyclopaedically notable speculation about the causes that is already happening. It will document research into the causes - academic studies, journalistic investigation, etc, when it happens (and that it will happen is more certain than the 2012 Olympics happening in London). Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and WP:SUMMARY allows that, but when that happens, we create the article organically. As it stands, this article is a coatrack and povfork, and its creating was not the result of an organic need in the main article, but the boldness of an editor who barely discussed this - a boldness that while welcomed in the abstract we should revert via deletion. Forking this actually decreased the quality of the main article, so we ended up with two less-than-stellar articles, rather than one passable one. --Cerejota (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete everyone has a theory of why it happened, and this does not make it encyclopaedic. seems to be a motley collection of ideologues, interest groups seeking to raise their profile and politicians trying to score points Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This article is about the causes of a highly relevant event. Ohconfucius above is right when he says there are many conflicting opinions and statements on this event but that's only to be expected with something of this type. We can document the public statements like an encyclopaedia should and avoid giving a biased viewpoint. Unixtastic (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Question How is this a "highly relevant event"?! It's just a bunch of teenagers causing damage and stealing stuff. It has no deep social or political meaning whatsoever. What makes it even less significant is that the whole thing immediately died down once it started to rain, proving that nobody was trying to make any point at all. That kind of negates it all. They were just sheep-like copycats doing what they saw on TV/Youtube, without knowing why. Give it a year or so and people won't even remember what this event was or why it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.28 (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Arnswer Because it is leading to a major crack down on things like incitment to riot via Blackberry Messenger.82.11.105.195 (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete / merge back into main article. Unnecessary splitting of content; this can be handled as a section within the main article. Avoid Avoid necessary splits. Neutralitytalk 16:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. Per User:Neutrality, this distracts from working on the Causes section in the main article, which isn't exactly overloaded to the point where a split is necessary. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 02:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SIZE which indicates that that article is certainly too big. It has been growing steadily and has spawned other sub-articles such as Timeline of 2011 England riots. Warden (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - well-sourced and a huge topic of discussion; also likely to be a continuing issue due to its effect on stock markets worldwide. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This looks like it might end in a merge. I was going to expand the article but am unprepared to do so while the threat of deletion hangs over the article as it is possible my efforts might be in vain. Something of a Catch 22… Quickbeam44 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you make a draft of your proposed expansion in your userspace and link to it here, talk:Causes of the 2011 England riots and Talk:2011 England riots. If this page is kept your work can be integrated into this article, if it is merged or deleted it can be integrated into the main article just as easily. See Help:Userspace draft if you are unsure how to do this. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I would be willing to contribute to building this article if is kept. I believe there is sufficient information as to the causes of the riots. These riots are quite clearly a multitude of factors and I feel its own page is warranted. Topics such as economy factors, 'moral decay', organised crime, greed culture and youth disenfranchisement are just some causes mentioned which can be expanded on. Stevo1000 (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge Largely per Roscelese. There's nothing in this article that can't be covered in the main riots article. It's little but a few cherry picked quotes, and at this stage has little substance to warrant it's own article. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  22:43, 20 August 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.