Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbine High School protests

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 . I don't think there's enough consensus to userfy just yet, though, so I'm going to close this as a standard keep. (non-admin closure) Biblio worm 00:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine High School protests

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

Contested prod. If this endures and escalates, it may one day be significant, but as things stand it's pretty much the embodiment of WP:109PAPERS – a local dispute over an amended school curriculum causing some schoolchildren to protest. Mogism (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far I am awaiting folks who will copy edit it, and then we will see where it will lead.--Mishae (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed something like 2014 Jefferson County, Colorado high school protests if kept, as that's the proper scope of the subject. postdlf (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could be more clearly notable before the AfD is over. I was skeptical at first (kids protest X, who knows why!!), but it seems to be a pretty broad protest in a decently sized population region regarding an attempt to change the local history curriculum contrary to national AP standards. The U.S. Civil War was indeed about slavery, kids. If not kept, it should be covered at Colorado#Education other suitable location.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is kept I'll take the CE Job. To Whoever closes this: please leave a quick message on my talk page if this is a keep—I would greatly appreciate it.

JacobiJonesJr (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks, I already let some copy editors know about it. To be honest, I took a note at how much coverage it got and it got enough for a stub article. Infact, its one of those articles that will be referred to by many future readers. Think of it as a small article similar in topic to lunch counter sit-ins. As a matter of fact, I think copy editors should edit this article to prevent it being deleted, so you shouldn't wait till someone notifies you if it will be a keep or not. Will appreciate JacobiJones's c/e over any deletion. :)--Mishae (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Copy editing won't affect the prospects of keeping it, Mishae, since AFD is not cleanup. First let it be decided whether the subject is notable and encyclopedic. If it is, it can be copy edited. --Stfg (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Stfg: Yes and no. I won't argue, but I think when you clean up an article during an AfD you give the editors much understandable article. A messy article can be deleted faster than a cleaned up one. Feel free to ping me if I am wrong. :) As a side note, user SYSS Mouse mentioned that the article wasn't clear enough. That's the reason why I am thinking if someone would clean it up during an AfD so that the article will show some light on notability.
    - As far as nominator go, I think he overstated it. True, some editors do write article on non-relevant subjects which are therefore subject to deletion. The current article though is not about some kind of protest like low wage complains (those will never be included in Wikipedia), its about human rights (in this case student rights). The nominator also stated that "If this endures and escalates, it may one day be significant". Question: So in your opinion every protest suppose to end up in shootout like it happen in Ferguson?--Mishae (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue was not explained clearly: The core issue of (quoting) ""positive aspects of U.S. heritage that promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights." And more importantly, the material asks that it should not "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law." People are seeing this as censorship from the conservative. The case is very similar to moral and national education in Hong Kong. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sufficient sources meet the WP:GNG but I think a question to ask is it a WP:ONEEVENT and perhaps it is, so far, although it has lasted several days now, surprisingly, but the Wikipedia guideline says Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. So, enduring historical significance or significant lasting effect? No way to tell yet, BUT as best I can remember, I can not recall a US high school student protest about curriculum choices. That is unusual, so in my view, the protest could set a new precedent, and have an impact, possibly, although of course it is too early to tell. And the Wikipedia rule Geoscope says Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group and right now the protests are confined to Colorado, so we're not on firm ground there, although it has spread to several high schools. But, another of the event criteria rules says Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable and this protest is being picked up by international papers such as the British daily The Guardian. So I think a sufficient case could be made to keep the article, see how it plays, although it is somewhat dicey; if it fizzles, then delete it, but right now it looks good to me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC) There is another angle, interesting one, at play here -- how students are getting sharper and more tuned in, possibly because of the Internet, possibly because of the best stuff on the Internet, and can challenge the high school curriculum people and teachers, that is, students have outpaced the teachers here -- definitely an interesting aspect, pushing me towards a stronger keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats exactly the point, is it is not ONE EVENT. The event is of interest to WikiProject Colorado only, yes, and initialy it was covered only by the Denver Post and other Colorado specific media, but then it was covered in The Guardian (2 times) and The Washington Post (1 time). So, in conclusion not every event suppose to be widespread nationaly or globally. I will search for more scope and see what I will be able to come up with. :)--Mishae (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ONEEVENT is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event, and as this is about an event, not about a person or people, ONEEVENT is a red herring here. --Stfg (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Userfy -- Tom's arguments above have convinced me it's too soon. "The protest could set a new precedent" is speculation (WP:CRYSTAL). "To see how it plays" means we don't know why it's notable yet -- it would become notable, if at all, when we've seen how it plays. That about the students getting "more tuned in" is pure original research. All about censorship and student rights? BS! It's a local teenage rebellion. Happens everywhere. --Stfg (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from Delete to Userfy. Much better idea since the work is kept in case it ever does become notable. Thanks Miniapolis. --Stfg (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe happens everywhere else, but not in the US, not US high school students, not protesting curriculum issues.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's interesting, that I agree with with most of the points which Tomwsulcer makes above although I arrive at the opposite decision. There are quite a few other localized incidents which are picked up in foreign papers (particularly those in GB and Israel), which I don't think initially merit an encyclopedia article. At this point, this I would put this in that same class.Onel5969 (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Move and Re-focus. The protests meet WP:GNG and have had significant coverage in diverse, independent sources. I think it needs focussing away from one particular school to the area affected by the changes protesters are complaining about. Perhaps it can be merged into Jefferson County Public Schools (Colorado), where it's already mentioned. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I accidentally created a duplicate of this page at 2014 Colorado student protests. I guess I'll redirect it here unless someone tells me I shouldn't. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly good deal secondary source coverage and discussion among multiple references. — Cirt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cirt: Where? I see two local papers, one local radio station, one local TV station, the Guardian website hosting an AP report, and a blog. Other than the Guardian, which is just their reposting of an AP story and not their own journalism, there is no indication at all that this has generated the slightest coverage or discussion outside the town in question. Mogism (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Associated Press gets it covered in most major newspapers in the United States. The fact that it then gets picked up in the United Kingdom is most certainly significant. — Cirt (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Cirt: Possibly not. The sources date from 23 September to 3 October 2014. That's what WP:109PAPERS is all about, isn't it? --Stfg (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not if one of the papers is in a different country, no. — Cirt (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the Guardian. Yes, the company itself is based in London and the print version is only published in London, but Guardian US is a separate virtual paper based in New York and aimed at American readers. From the "Tell us: how did your school teach Columbus Day?" link, and the Nicky Woolf byline, this clearly appeared in Guardian US and not the Guardian itself. Mogism (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a major, ongoing series of rolling strikes in the largest school district in Colorado, extensively covered in The Guardian. Ya dont like The Guardian? Then try CBS-Denver. Or Fox News. ABC News. Or The Denver Post. Ad infinitum. This is a major story of historic importance to the American student movement, which is a real thing. Carrite (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per postdlf. Lightbreather (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A clear Keep due to extensive, ongoing, detailed, national-level coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until it meets the "enduring notability" required by WP:NOTNEWS. As Stfg says, copyediting is irrelevant to notability; the article can be cleaned up if and when it's suitable for mainspace. Miniapolis 20:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into AP United States History - This may seem weird, but hear me out on this one. It's pretty clear these protests have some coverage in regard to the recent push for AP History to contain more patriotism. Would that not possibly warrant a section in the course article itself as an event affecting it? I'm very sketchy of the subject's overall notability and due weight, and very sketchy on the title (seriously, it seems to be dubious based on the Columbine High School massacre), but I could see the subject itself being preserved as part of the main article on the course. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy this for now, until the lasting notability is clearer. I am not at all convinced that this won't be a WP:ONEEVENT flash in the pan that is forgotten in a couple of weeks. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep the nature of the coverage and the general implication for US education indicates that it is more likely than not to have long term significance. DGG ( talk ) 07:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this meets a probable cause threshold for notability, per DGG. It likely (although not certainly) would have long-term consequences. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.