Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Patrol


 * 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. There appears to be little agreement on whether this constitutes an event of encyclopedic worth or simply a fleeting news story. I'd suggest that time will tell - particularly if this incident fades from the public consciousness, a renomination in 6 months or so may bring more clarity. ~ mazca  talk 00:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Patrol

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies here, as well as WP:ORG for a gang that apparently has been active since the beginning of this year. The article is about the gang, but it provides no information about it, or indication as to its notability, only news reports of actions allegedly attributed to them. This is not enduring or encyclopedic, at least not yet. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The patrol was notable and covered by international press, and of course, all English media outlets. Al Jazeera, NY Daily, Global Post, Russian Times, Times of India, Jerusalem Post, Herald Sun (Aus). A Google search brings thousand of results. Trichinosis (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Very much a one-time-only event. Indeed NOTNEWS and misses WP:ORG, as the nom says. Perhaps this will change in the future, but I can't tell because i just dropped my crystal ball. --Randykitty (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete It was in various newspapers but that was only for a brief time-span. This isn't an official, organised or ongoing "gang" like others elsewhere and abroad; it is just 5 men in a one-time-only event. I agree: Delete: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ORG. Rushton2010 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This has been a major news story and was spoken about fr several weeks if not 2 months. It was not a tiny incident. It has aslos pawned documentatries. Meets gng. It is also continually spoken about in sources about other topics.  Pass a Method   talk  08:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that the above editor has moved the article to a new title: Muslim Patrol incident. --Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This local event was perhaps newsworthy, but I do not see any evidence that it was sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopedia.  Peacock (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Besides the sources given in the article, (Telegraph, Herald Sun, Guardian, Sunday Times, BBC, International Business Times, etc) there are further news articles in Al Jazeera, WashingtonPost, Cavalier Daily, etc etc. The scope is larger and some of the articles more positive than this Wikipedia article, but this article is the start of a real phenomenon that has been around awhile and is likely to continue.  We need to enlarge and expand it, not delete it. Opportunidaddy (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- My reaction is that this is a gang of thugs trying to impose their will on British citizens. However there is a phenomenon of some Muslims seeking to assert that some areas of UK are "Muslim Areas", where Muslim rules rather than British law should apply.  There may be a case for a wider article to be created of which this and Muslim Patrol incident provide an example.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is perhaps an opportunity for a more general article and this incident could be a short example in that one. Despite all the breathless "keep" !votes here, I have yet to see a coherent argument for lasting encyclopedic value. --Randykitty (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * For Closing admin -- That article should suffer the same fate as this article whatever it is. If this one is kept, the other should be redirected to this (or vice versa).  If this is deleted, so should the other, as an attempt to get around the AFD procedure.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Widely covered by international media and the incident provoked a lot of discussion and debate. Crystalfile (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. While it does seem to be a one-time event, coverage seems considerable enough to render it a worthy article. It's also hard to say where else it could possibly be merged were that a viable suggestion, but I think the article as it is scrapes by WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2013 (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.