Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Declaration of peace


 * 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 08:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of peace
POV, unnotable as compared to other demonstrations that have occured against U.S. actions related to the War on Terror, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Controversey articles over the 9/11 Attacks, the War on Terror and the War in Iraq can handle this just fine, thank you. --Kitch 02:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Last I checked UPI and the Washingtonpost  were major news outlets and wikipedia can handle this just fine, thank you. grazon 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A mere news event can go into WikiNews. Unless this does something notable, merely existing does not mean it should have its own article. --Kitch 02:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The Washington Post coverage is a local city news article. See this link for the "Metro" category market in the top left corner. That's why the story is filed under the "Metro" section and not the "National" or "Politics" section. Remember, the Washington Post is not just a national newspaper, it is also a local and regional newspaper. There is no coverage of this event in the New York Times at time of writing.As for United Press International, this is a newswire service, and like its rivals, Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse and so on, it carries many minor stories as it primarily services news outlets (its main customers) with as a great a choice of news as possible, and is not primarily driven by editorial selection of stories. A Newswire is not comparable to a major newspaper in terms of news selection. Bwithh 13:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a week long event and the arrest of jim winkler alone makes this important enough to be on wikpedia. grazon 02:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article needs serious work, but seems to meet WP:ORG and WP:RS. Article should be focusing on the organization, rather than the demonstration, as that what the title reflects. eaolson 03:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There's no limit on amount of storage space we can use. Other marches and events like this get coverage, and it hurts nothing to have an encyclopediac article on it. You going to Afd Million Man March in 10 years as no longer relevant? · XP  · 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, enough coverage for notableness. · XP  · 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but wikify and clean-up. --Ineffable3000 04:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. The cites are to small, "news-in-brief" sorts of articles, and the article would need to be rewritten from scratch to conform to Wikipedia standards. It's just another demonstration that will be forgotten in days. --Aaron 04:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN, not encyclopedic. Tbeatty 06:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. As an added bonus, the article is unwikified, written in first person ("our"), and references are not inline. Andjam 06:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete press release. Gazpacho 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I suppose, but Wikipedia is not a place to promote things before they are noticed. Gazpacho 10:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I have just formatted the article to help wikify it; however there needs to be a section added for against the Declaration of Peace as well as for. -- Casmith 789 08:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It needs some major TLC, but I think we can salvage it.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep this article is preliminary, because notability is still a bit questionable. however, the event is being covered in major newspapers, so it's not a clear-cut delete case and it may end up being clearly worthy (by my standards). deleting the article right now tends to close off options, because there is a strong bias against re-creation of deleted content. there's no harm in waiting a week to decide. Derex 09:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep 2420 references to this in the news today. Clearly has crossed the notability threshold. Even more notable than Lauren B. Weiner was (inside joke for T). Derex 10:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You got to use quotation marks and targetted terms when searching google or google news or google whatever. Otherwise you get lots of false hits like this. If you use quotation marks for "declaration of peace" and add in term "iraq", you get only ~81 hits - mainly local news coverage, including local city news coverage from the Washington Post (notice that it's filed under the "Metro" section rather than "National" or "Politics". I didn't see any other major newspapers. Zero coverage in the New York Times for instance Bwithh 13:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply fair enough. with quotaion marks, it still gets well over 60 newspaper articles, including the washington post and several major city dailys, and is carried on the upi wire service. (it also gets +400 unique non-news hits). that meets my standards. i frankly don't see what's bad about providing information on what's clearly a reasonably large event, as indicated by the geographical breadth of the coverage). isn't that what we're supposed to do: provide neutral information about things people care about? people seem to care about this, as evidenced by widespread coverage. Derex 08:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, if you want to use my notability standard on Weiner, I voted Delete--Tbeatty 17:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Merge to Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war or Delete if not Merged Event has only had local news/small newspaper and independent internet media (e.g. indymedia coverage so far (about 81 hits on Google News). Special week and special day declarations are a dime a dozen. If this gets any major traction sufficient for major news sources, than promote the article. Otherwise, its just another protest event. It has some national organization, so ok to include in the main protests article but not for its own article. Bwithh 13:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Crockspot 13:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Johnbrownsbody 13:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete By itself it is a local news story. As part of a greater whole, it might be notable. Either way it does not stand alone as its own article. Maadio 17:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Morton devonshire 19:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete promotion. Perhaps in a few months it will be possible to separate hype from fiction. Guy 23:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to Protests against the Iraq War. Of the other protests described in that article, the most recent one to have a separate article, September 24, 2005 anti-war protest reported an attendance of 150,000 people in Washington, D.C. The Washington Post's coverage of this event reports 75 attendees at the "kick-off" event for this protest in D.C. on the 21st. I think the difference in scales is compelling evidence that this is insufficiently notable for a separate article. Choess 23:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note of order: By precedent, and I invoke the deletion of George Allen Smith, which stated that routine publicity is not enough to make a subject notable enough for an article. --Kitch 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Merge to Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war What Bwithh said. Edison 21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:05 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. Stilgar135 23:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --Gray Porpoise 21:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. -- GLGerman 10:18, 29 September 2006 (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.