Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Patrick's Day riot


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Day riot

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This was prodded by another user and subsequently the prod was declined. Not entirely sure whether this article fails WP:GNG or not, but clearly a discussion is in order. Safiel (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was the editor who declined the prod, on the basis of this BBC article. There are plenty of other reliable sources that cover this event in detail, e.g. this one and this one. The difficulty is that the article is about an event that only happened two days ago, so it is difficult to know whether this satisfies WP:PERSISTENCE. It might be best to just let this sit a few days, per WP:RAPID. Notability seems to be unclear at present. LeSnail (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Riot has had coverage on the BBC (as mentioned in what there is of the article, which desperately needs expansion), and is on CBC.ca . It's supposedly leading to a reassessment of local zoning and curfew laws (which may result in a lasting effect), but it really seems too soon to figure out whether this will meet WP:EVENT or just fade into the background. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to something suitable (can't think of anything), without prejudice to reversion once enough time (a month, perhaps) has passed to determine if it meets WP:PERSISTENCE. Right now it's not possible for it to pass that guideline. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or major expansion Currently the article has almost no information at all, and does not show any notability. However, the topic itself might be notable and it will become more apparent if the article is expanded. Either way, the article should not be left in its current condition. JDDJS (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete There is absolutely no context here and Wikipedia is not a storage bin for coverage of every minor news story. The name is terrible and must go, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC) A bunch of drunk students with 11 arrests?!?! Sheeeeeeeeit, I've been to a one-day cricket match in New Zealand that tops that... Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's still getting mentioned in the media with the proposed bylaw changes . I fleshed out the article and added refs to CBC and the Macleans bit about the blylaw proposal.  Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - It was mentioned on 31 March, see . → Σ  τ  c . 05:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Criminal cases tend to generate coverage over time simply because the initial event, charges, trial, and sentencing take some time to unfold, but that isn't indicative of lasting notability - the coverage is still ultimately routine. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - a minor incident that will be forgotten in a year or two; not of historical importance. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:EFFECT. -- Trevj (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2012 (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.