Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topple the Tyrants (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Topple the Tyrants
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article outdated and this was a very minor news event. It's not important enough to have its own article. Oh man, I wanted to swipe that article! (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed properly. It has been fixed. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: received significant media coverage (disregarding repeats) over a period of a month. Does need updating, but RSs have been unclear as to whether situations is still ongoing (as part of the larger Libya impasse) or whether is was resolved. This should definitely be updated once the final resolution comes to pass, but seems to be a significant example of politically-motivated occupyings of buildings, and well-covered by a variety of media. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge. WP:ONEEVENT and coverage of an insignificant group. Could merge in to Seif al-Islam article. They occupied one home of the son of Libya's Gaddafi. Nobody heard of them before they moved in. I doubt that anybody will remember them after they've been evicted. They are a bunch of blackmailers (and property kidnappers) who want money to move out.   Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 23:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: suggest the above post be stricken from the discussion due to blatant POV in just a few short sentences. It's one thing to raise legit objections, another to say "we shouldn't write about X group because they're terrible people." Further, it's a spurious argument to say that their importance before/after the event is a deciding factor; the only thing that matters is whether their involvement in the cited event is notable, as the article basically covers a one-shot group formed for a specific notable event. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ok I've striked last two sentences myself because they are my POV but they are indeed negotiating for money to move out.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 21:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article is an event important. It should be kept so later generations will know it. BenjaminMarine9037 (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2011 (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) 00:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per precedent and the group's significance in the news. Wandering Courier (talk) 17:40, 12 July 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.