Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

March 19, 2008 anti-war protest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Doesn't really rise to a notable level. Only brief and local coverage (or first-party), and, as the article admits, a "small" action. No impact on policy, of course. Some anti-war marches are notable - the January 27, 2007 anti-war protest, for example. This one was on a far smaller scale and its article should be deleted. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, this one reads like a news article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; news articles belong on Wikinews. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. These events did receive significant news coverage, but this article needs a LOT of work to bring it up to standard. If it sounds like news, that means we just need to go through a few more rewrites. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And as a follow-on, the article is also currently incomplete. There were many different demonstrations that day, and this one only covers one of them. There's a photo of Funk the War 3, but no text about it. Additionally, there were other marches later on in the day that have received no coverage at this point in the article. The article has been tagged for expansion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I still say delete because this is an event that will probably be soon forgoten anyway, but if you want to say keep because there was a lot of coverage, and you think the topic is notable, then I would have to say it'd be better to just merge it with March 19, 2007, March, and/or create an article titled 2007 Anti-war Protests and merge this and all related articles to the new 2007 Anti-war Protests article. Sound reasonable? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 13:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, for one thing, you got the year wrong, and no, that's not a particularly good solution. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Debate (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not impressed by the current state of the article, but it seems to me that it could be improved so that it would be worth keeping. The March 19, 2008 protests were a break from demonstrations on past anniversaries of the invasion of Iraq in that civil disobedience replaced the mass march completely as a strategy. If the article included some of the context, the debates in the antiwar movement leading up to the demonstrations, IVAW's call not to distract from Winter Soldier, Cindy Sheehan's unsuccessful attempt to put together a unified march, etc., I think it would go beyond a news piece and be worthy of an encyclopedia. Kalkin (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• keep i'm also not impressed by the current state if the article however, as we try to host the sum of all human knowledge, i say we need to take a look at history and these protests will be researched in the future. a cleanup tag will do for now.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and it's not appropriate to speculate on whether this protest will be considered significant in the future. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• comment, don't be ridiculous. it's completely appropriate. and it's not speculation. history is looked back upon. that is a fact. all wars and protest movements have been looked back upon. end of story. your comments are the ones that are inappropriate.Myheartinchile (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Does having an article about the event in The Guardian count as notible enough? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment No - read WP:NOT#NEWS. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The protests in D.C. and other cities absolutely merit an encyclopedic article. The main protest took place on a weekday (3/19 was a Wednesday) and the traffic disruptions, demonstrations, and police arrests drew enourmous attention of people who work in D.C. including House and Senate members. The Iraq war and the protests are VERY significant. Since the protest many Congress members now appear reluctant to be seen supporting the war. On May 15, 132 House Republicans even voted "present" rather than "yes" for supporting war funding. This is unprecedented since the war started 5 years ago Astuteoak (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• comment, you don't seem to understand that whatever effect this event had on the people of DC is as you stated it wholly irrelevant. wikipedia articles includability is measured by WP:N and protests fall under WP:EVENT, you should also see WP:NOTNEWS, if your article does get deleted it will definitely have a place at wikinews. arrests don't make for notability, also there is no states verifiable correlation between your protest and the allegations you make about the u.s. congress' voting patterns. wikipedia does not pubish the truth. it publishes the verifiable facts available.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• reply Your opinions are well stated, nevertheless the protests in D.C. and other cities are profoundly notable. It is very uncommon for the U.S. to be in a war which last 5 years, and a 5-year anniversary war protest is historically significant. I agree congress' voting patterns is speculation and that's why its not in the article. Only history will decide if the protests had a political influence. I have two children and as they grow up they should be able to go to Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia and be able to read about the Iraq war, related politics, and the war protests. Relegating this to "news clips" would be a disservice to future generations. Any encyclopedia which neglects to mention these events would be woefully deficient.Astuteoak (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not the news. Momentary headlines do not make for Encyclopedic notability. Just another anti war protest. It is not notable, and putative usefulness of the information is not sufficient to have an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We are an encyclopedia, not the Anti War Movement Archive/Annals/News. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, one-time news event. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I would appreciate one or more of the editors who believes that this is a "one-time news event" commenting on my suggestion that the article include background not mentioned by news articles. Kalkin (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Stretching the article to include background duplicates the existing article, protests against the Iraq War. Any contextual information would be much more appropriately covered in that article instead of broadening the scope of this one well beyond its natural limits. Debate (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. Did you see my comment above? I am not proposing that we include general antiwar-protest background information, but background information to this specific protest. I believe that for a number of reasons - because of the role it played in the antiwar movement, because of new features, because of its position on the fifth anniversary of the war - this protest is more notable than your average antiwar protest of equivalent size. Kalkin (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The subject lacks stand alone notability. Perhaps content from this would be better suited as a brief mention in protests against the Iraq War. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:NOT#NEWS. MrPrada (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)