Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandalism of Stonehenge

Vandalism of Stonehenge

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Merge with Just_Stop_Oil#2024: Per OP. Not independently notable when this is one among many Just Stop Oil protests. — Czello ^(music) 09:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is salvageable to Just Stop Oil per OP. WP:NEVENT is relevant. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, I would be down to expand the scope to all acts of vandalism on Stonehenge. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete just another stunt from them. No damage - not interesting. Secretlondon (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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, GenevieveDEon 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's extremely obvious you're targeting us with those contentious topics alerts because we want your article merged away, WeatherWriter. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:DELAY is also listed right above WP:RAPID. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Just Stop Oil#2024 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I strongly agree. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note, I dispute your assessment Ad Orientem 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Better to merge into Stonehenge surely? Rather than Just Stop Oil — Iadmc ♫^talk 15:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete or merge. Article can be mentioned at both Stonehenge and Don't Stop Oil, in due weight fashion. — Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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'Doherty (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Merge Numberguy6 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Merge with Just Stop Oil article. 2601:441:5180:9500:4DC1:AC55:2555:9733 (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]