Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandalism of Stonehenge


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Just Stop Oil without prejudice against also merging relevant content with Stonehenge or other pages, as applicable. There is an overwhelming consensus that this doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Since there is no content violating policy here, there is no requirement to delete the page, and a merge is a perfectly sensible alternative. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism of Stonehenge

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This event is fully covered in a short paragraph in the main Stonehenge article. The idea that something which happened yesterday and was cleaned up today with no lasting effects needs a whole article with the sweeping title 'Vandalism of Stonehenge' is unreasonable. Attempts to query the notability of this article, or to expand its scope to match the title, have been rebuffed by the creator, which rather smacks of WP:OWN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge with Just_Stop_Oil: Per OP. Not independently notable when this is one among many Just Stop Oil protests. — Czello (music) 09:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Or expand scope. Amending my comment based on arguments below. — Czello (music) 08:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever is salvageable to Just Stop Oil per OP. WP:NEVENT is relevant. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge where appropriate and delete. Given the tabby choice of title I'm agnostic if we need even the redirect.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Environment,  and England.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  10:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever is appropriate to Just Stop Oil. I was tempted to nominate it myself, but thought for some reason we should wait one week or so when coverage inevitably stops.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 10:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With that said, I would be down to expand the scope to all acts of vandalism on Stonehenge.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 13:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment the title is simply "Vandalism of Stonehenge" so this article could be used to cover all vandalism attempts on the monument. Otherwise Merge as above— Iadmc  ♫ talk  11:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, which is why merging to Just Stop Oil would in incorrect, as it predates that organisation by decades if not more. Orange sticker (talk) Orange sticker (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * True. Delete the article — Iadmc  ♫ talk  15:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete just another stunt from them. No damage - not interesting. Secretlondon (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment from creator — I absolutely did not say the scope couldn’t be expanded. In fact, my only comment regarding notability of the article was to note that LASTING could not be proven, and that a reassessment should occur in a week for notability. I am not going to !vote here, however, put words into my mouth in this WP:RAPID deletion attempt. I personally ignore the nomination reasoning by GenevieveDEon for that reason, however, all other comments (keep, merge, or delete) from other editors I will be looking at extensively and appreciate all the responses. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On closer inspection, I see that the large additions that were removed were from IP users trying to make the page be about the nearby road tunnel. That's obviously not appropriate in any case. But it does highlight a deeper problem: the concept of 'vandalism' is not culturally or politically neutral, and deciding what should be included or excluded from such a general article would be very difficult. As it stands, this article is still undue emphasis on a very short-lived and likely insignificant event. I also note that User:WeatherWriter tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. This isn't about climate change. I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest. My position would be the same whatever the purpose of the protest - a separate article is unnecessary. And calling this "the vandalism of Stonehenge" was, is, and remains ludicrous. We're not here to elevate utterly trivial news stories into separate encyclopedic topics. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The tag on your talk page is a required thing per WP:CTOPICS. This was a protest related to climate change and as such, first-alert topics are given to editors in the field of articles regarding climate change. Nothing directed towards you. You statement "This isn't about climate change" is absolutely false, since Just Stop Oil is a climate-change related organization. Please do not focus on the editor and focus on the content. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I regard it as rather targeted, because you didn't add the tag to the Vandalism of Stonehenge article itself when you created it, but only when you were tagging various places including my talk page, after I had made this nomination. And I'm not sure it's a sensible use of the contentious topics policy for you to create an unnecessary (and untagged) article about a very minor event somewhat connected with the contentious topic, and then start throwing around the template once someone challenges that creation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please strike the comment above as it does not pertain to the content of the article and is directly entirely at me. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. It's about how you handled the marking of the article in question, and related pages, as being related to a contentious topic only when it served to criticise this deletion discussion. My comment stands. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's extremely obvious you're targeting us with those contentious topics alerts because we want your article merged away, WeatherWriter.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Really? CTOPIC notices are a required thing to do. As explained to GenevieveDEon at the administrators noticeboard. After the discussion was opened up there, all the accusations of OWNing, POV-pushing, and alleged targeting were taken back by GenevieveDEon. Please don't make the same mistake and accuse me. On a brief inspection, two minutes earlier, you removed the CTOPICs notice, which you are perfectly allowed to do (with indicates you acknowledged it). In your edit summary, you stated, "where did I edit an article under that?" Does that mean you do not consider this to be even slightly related to climate change? If the answer is yes, then you are not ready to edit in the CTOPICs area. Also, before you accuse me further that I am targetting because "we want your article merged away", you should do your homework and see that I too support merging it. Please strike the accusations and I would strike this entire comment insuit. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As above, you've only tagged the article for CTOPs when the discussion got heated. I'm not striking my comment, by the way. I stand by it.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 23:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Argumentatively telling people "you are not ready to edit in the CTOPICs area" in response to comment on their own WP:INAPPNOTE is itself highly inappropriate. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:DELAY is also listed right above WP:RAPID. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge with Just Stop Oil as per above. For vandalism attempts other than the Just Stop Oil one, they would be more suitable for inclusion in the Stonehenge article. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Expand Scope or Merge — The scope of the article should be expanded to cover all acts of vandalism to Stonehenge throughout history. If that cannot be agreed apon, then I support a complete merge (the entire article content) into Just Stop Oil. I would also encourage other editors to consider the scope expansion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Vandalism of Stonehenge" suggests the article is about the concept of vandalism of Stonehenge and is confusing when it turns out to be about one specific incident. SystemPhantom (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - and expand scope. There must have been similar incident etc in the past. Sourcs are good and notability fow now obvious.BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I regard that as an unncessary content fork - there's not enough on this in the main Stonehenge article to warrant it. When there is, then such a fork would be worth considering. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge Incident appears to be a run of the mill publicity stunt with no long term significance specific to this event. Subject fails WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:SENSATIONAL and the WP:10YT. Arguably this is a good example of why we should not rush to create articles about recent events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. While I appreciated the appearance of this entry when I was looking for more information on this breaking story, even then I was doubtful that it needed its own page. Also, it should be noted that I went to the Stonehenge page first, and either the incident hadn't been added yet or I somehow missed it, otherwise I wouldn't have gone to this page at all. RogueLoreBard (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note, I dispute your assessment that this fails GEOSCOPE. I highly doubt the Associated Press, CNN, and Fox News are "local" sources around Stonehenge. The rest I do not have a direct disagreement with, but I wanted to go ahead and dispute the GEOSCOPE argument stated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. There was international coverage. Though it has dropped drastically even in the UK which does not bode well for WP:SUSTAINED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Better to merge into Stonehenge surely? Rather than Just Stop Oil — Iadmc  ♫ talk  15:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't originally propose a merge at all, because there's already a more-than-sufficient mention of it in the Stonehenge article itself. (See the discussion on the talk page there about whether that's warranted.) The Just Stop Oil article needs some work in any case because it's tending to WP:PROSELINE at the moment, but I don't feel qualified to say whether merging this page into it would help that issue. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have read further before my previous reply, but yes, agree if the end result is merge. Orange sticker (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Article can be mentioned at both Stonehenge and Don't Stop Oil, in due weight fashion. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. No more notable than any of the other instances of immediately reversed vandalism from JSO. Sinclairian (talk) Sinclairian (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - Stonehenge has been around 4,000 years and it'll be around 4,000 more. A feeble double act of environmental suffragettes taking 30 seconds to sprinkle orange flour over two of the stones doesn't warrant a mention in the main article, let alone its own. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LASTING and WP:SENSATIONAL. This event is already mentioned in the Just Stop Oil article, and doesn't appear to be a more thorough coverage than appears in the JSO article. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge Numberguy6 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge with Just Stop Oil article, probably a prosed version briefly mentioning the event and reactions alongside would fit enough in that case. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge with Just Stop Oil article. 2601:441:5180:9500:4DC1:AC55:2555:9733 (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Dictionary describes vandalism as "action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property." This protest was neither destructive nor damaging therefore the title is false. 2601:1C0:577F:4070:39DB:2AFE:E080:8893 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge Just another one of their stunts involving criminal behaviour, does not merit a standalone article above any of their other ones. Should be merged into the main Stop Oil article.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 10:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Do not leave a redirect to Just Stop Oil as the title is too broad. ✶Qux  yz  ✶  16:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge with Just Stop Oil as it's one of their protests. This is Paul (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete There's already mention of it at Just Stop Oil article so nothing else sensible to merge. And oppose redirect since this isn't the only time in history that Stonehenge will have been vandalised. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge without redirect Supportive of either outcome. I think Just Stop Oil is a better target article than Stonehenge as this is too insignificant to warrant being in the latter. All that happened was that a small amount of corn-based colorant was sprayed on a couple of the rocks and stayed there for less than one day. Usually I'd argue that it takes more time than this to assess if an event has any WP:LASTING impact and that trying to rush to delete based on WP:LASTING would itself be WP:CRYSTAL. But it took nothing more than an air blower to remove the corn-based dye. This was just a publicity stunt that grabbed headlines by making it seem like they were causing some serious damage to a world heritage site, but in the end, they did nothing. If they wanted to cause some real damage, they probably would have used real paint instead of corn. They got the headlines they wanted, but this is the sort of story that belongs in a sensationalist tabloid paper, not an encyclopedia. Agree that this title is too broad to make it a redirect.  Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 19:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Create a new page, "vandalism of monuments" and mention it there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.24.27 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. We're not creating a huge new WP:COATRACK article just to have a third place in which to mention this vanishingly unimportant news story that already gets coverage at Stonehenge and Just Stop Oil. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the modern history section. Merge content to Just Stop Oil. Not everything needs a separate article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge with Just Stop Oil as above seeing as this is a relatively minor event, and should just be added to JSO's list of protests. Yendetta (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simple protest so do not keep or rename. There is sufficient content elsewhere so do not merge. Bad title so do not redirect. No need to salvage so do not draftify or userfy. Remains delete. gidonb (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Expand Scope or Merge to Just Stop Oil per The Weather Event Writer - Sebbog13 (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge and don't expand scope I don't think the concept of vandalism of Stonehenge is notable Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC).
 * Apparently the above comment mentioned Sinclairian somehow. Not sure how that happened. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge without redirect per Orange sticker. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete this article is is about a recent, one off event and I think it fails WP:EVENT on a number of fronts, including WP:DELAY and WP:LASTING. An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences. This article doesn't even mention the many other instances (e.g.) of vandalism there have been over time so this article is WP:UNDUE. Orange sticker (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to remind everyone suggesting that this should be merged to Just Stop Oil that this would leave a redirect, meaning anyone searching for the term Vandalism of Stonehenge would find themselves on the JSO page, despite the fact that this is a single incident and there have been multiple incidents of vandalism carried out by various groups and individuals over the years and no doubtnit will happen again. |Call for Stonehenge access ban to curb 'annual vandalism, February 2015
 * Orange sticker (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's sufficient content on Just Stop Oil. If that content came from here, I believe we can still redirect to Stonehenge and mention Just Stop Oil in the edit summary in order to meet attribution requirements. Vandalism of Stonehenge is already covered in the Stonehenge article and shouldn't redirect to a group that targetted Stonehenge only in one particular act which fails notability guidelines. For example, it's hardly clear from the article how this incident is going to contribute towards the fight climate change, or change government policy towards this activist group, which could contribute towards WP:LASTING for this act. The article itself has a news media tone; hence, if the topic turns out to be notable in the future, I think it would be better to write it from scratch with newer and better sources.
 * If the closing admin considers this discussion to have no consensus, feel free to consider this a !vote in favour of redirecting or merging; I don't want my disagreement to contribute to a keep outcome. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 22:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus against keeping the article is overwhelming. The only question is its disposition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, I just felt it didn't hurt to mention :) <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 23:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Editors have a consensus that the article should not be kept, and also that this event should be covered in the Just Stop Oil article. There is some division around whether or not any further merging is necessary beyond what has already occurred. For that reason, I suggest we simply redirect to Just Stop Oil and allow the ordinary WP:BRD process and/or discussion on the redirect target's talk page to work its magic. —  Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But what if someone is searching for the vandalism of Stonehenge that took place in 2016, 1999 or 1961? Orange sticker (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we have coverage on those incidents? Might it be better to dabify this page? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 14:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have coverage from my reading of the discussion, but I agree with your approach. Personally, I would redirect it to Stonehenge, but I have no problem with you closing this and redirecting it to the other destination and allowing people to change the target outside of this AFD via WP:BRD.  So, I would say go ahead and close this without further discussion and let people figure this out beyond the AFD.   Malinaccier  ( talk ) 14:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.