Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraser Anning egg incident

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 redirect to Fraser Anning#Christchurch mosque shootings and egg incident. There is a consensus that this incident should not have a stand-alone article. In general the default action in such cases is to redirect to a suitable target unless a strong argument has been advanced for not doing so. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Anning egg incident

[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)

Wikipedia isn't meant to cover a brief flurry of news. And this event is really very minor. Most of this article is just spam trying to make the event seem important, when it could all be in the article of Fraser Anning --Quiz shows 04:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not news. It can be covered at Fraser Annings article. AIRcorn (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Part of the ever-changing news cycle, no suggestion of lasting significance, worth only a mention in the Fraser Anning article. WWGB (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge. Move any notable details, with citations, into Fraser_Anning#Christchurch_mosque_shootings, where the incident has already been mentioned. Definitely not worth a stand-alone article. Meticulo (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per discussion below. Apologies for beginning this 'Merge' trend. I fully expect to be whacked with a wet trout. Meticulo (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merge info into the aforementioned Fraser_Anning#Christchurch_mosque_shootings article unless this proves to have lasting significance, which is unlikely. JaneHillervene (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge. Merge into Fraser_Anning#Christchurch_mosque_shootings. This is a very minor incident which can be adequately covered there.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per discussion below. This is adequately covered by Anning's article. There is nothing here that needs merging.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge considering it already exists elsewhere and per WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 05:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Keep as the news coverage is now ongoing. SportingFlyer T·C 02:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just curious as to what needs to be merged. It is already covered pretty well there? AIRcorn (talk) 05:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "merge" and "delete" is virtually the same in this context, but I think "merge" is an easier target.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does mean a redirect will be left behind and it will be added to the already backloged Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge and expand the Anning article. Leotext (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's adequately covered in Fraser_Anning#Christchurch_mosque_shootings, which, unlike this article, does not name the person who egged the senator (nor do the sources used for that section). Per WP:BLPNAME, I don't think that information should be included, so it would be preferable to delete this article than to merge it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. We should be cautious about identifying the person who egged the senator. I noticed on Insiders this morning that his face was blanked out, and he was said to be 17 years old. Charges may still be laid against him, and he would be considered a child for legal purposes. Identifying him could then be illegal and result in prosecution for contempt of court, despite his being active on social media. ~~Accordingly, I've removed his name from the article, with an edit summary asking that it not be replaced until a consensus to do so has been established on the talk page.~~ Thanks, RebeccaGreen, for pointing out this issue. Meticulo (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reverted my change and put his name back into the article, hence the strike-out above. Their reasons for doing so, and my response, are on the talk page. Meticulo (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, flash in the pan, no enduring significance - no material to merge as far as I can see. St Anselm (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge just put it in the Fraser Anning article. It's really not relevant enough to have an article separate from his own. Dreadwyrm (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can and it is covered at the Fraser Anning article. I agree with RebeccaGreen as per WP:BLPNAME, that information should not be includedBacondrum (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This belongs as a subsection of the Fraser Anning article, not an independent article. However, the final decision should be put off until it is clear whether or not criminal charges will result from the incident, since those would make it more noteworthy. Lokicarbis (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a criminal charge against Anning, that belongs on his article. If there were criminal charges against "egg boy", that is trivial. We should not maintain an article on the basis that it might become noteworthy at some point. It might turn out that the egg contained VX nerve gas and the "boy" was a North Korean sleeper agent. As it stands, the incident was a trivial act of protest that obtained transient and superficial attention.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, this is going to be completely forgotten within months, though having the information merged to the notable main article and a redirect to that will be more useful. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 11:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that can be done here = think about whether this will be seen as important in the future. That's because WP:GNG is clearly met by international coverage, and a lot of the content doesn't belong at the article on the politician.
GoFundMe raised over $30,000 for the kid and "more eggs" [1]. The incident was trending worldwide on Twitter [2]. Over 1 million people have signed a Change.org petition to remove Anning from Parliament [3]. The petition is the largest Australian Change.org petition [4].
All of this, coupled with the ton of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, leads me to believe that it is necessary to keep this article with no prejudice to a future renomination. wumbolo ^^^ 12:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The petition to remove Anning is only marginally related to this incident. St Anselm (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. So the only thing left is the fact that the incident was trending on Twitter. But all sorts of temporary news trends on Twitter (and all sorts of temporary non-news, like opinions on the latest reality TV episode), so that is no argument to keep. Adpete (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article should be renamed to something like "Fraser Anning statement about Islam controversy". Then it would cover all of the relevant events - the egging, the latter encounter with a protester, the petition, the criminal proceeding of the assault, reactions to the statement about Islam, potential censure from Parliament, potential resigning, etc. Problem fixed. wumbolo ^^^ 22:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that is far more appropriate at the Fraser Anning article. Adpete (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Part of it can be merged into the Fraser Anning page, definitely not significant enough to be a page alone. Peter Yeung (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fraser Anning. There isn't enough content here to justify a separate article, it seems premature at this point unless this incident has some kind of lasting consequences. Robofish (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the incident is still under investigation and the article documents a current event. It seems premature to delete the article at the moment, since there is a possibility that this could become more important in the future. However, if in a month or so, there are no new developments, I would agree with merging into a different article. Hickland (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, covered in the main article more than adequately. Steven Crossin 16:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS. We should not create a separate page for every political egging incident no-matter how 'prominent' some people think it is at a given moment. Alssa1 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's already sufficiently merged into Fraser Anning's page. Perhaps we could add another sentence or two of details about the egg-thrower, but per above this is a serious case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Certainly looks like we're reaching consensus here. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to to Fraser Anning. Split off again if there is continued coverage. DigitalPanda (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in its entirely, or the vast majority of it, to Fraser Anning. Pre-empting the result of this AfD, we can start doing that now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously unencyclopedic and I'd go even farther to say we should censure the misguided editor that created it in the first place as being WP:NOTHERE. This has exhausted the attention of too many editors already. -- Netoholic @ 02:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know this won't be a popular opinion, but the coverage this incident has achieved, and the cultural impact, both in Australia and New Zealand, as well as internationally, has been significant. The coverage has focused on the actions of "Egg Boy" and his motivations, with bands and festivals offering him free entry for life. This has been an interesting example of a societal and especially internet, phenomenon. Also compare this article to Egg Throwing Incident (1917). There are 45 (!) articles in the category Category:Protests against Donald Trump alone. I have a feeling that if this happened in the United States, we wouldn't be having this discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't compare the President of the United States with a minor Australian politician. Show some pages dedicated to protests against minor US politicians and you might have something comparable. Adpete (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is relevant due to the statement Anning released in the aftermath of one of the worst massacres in recent memory, in which he blamed the victims. The statement and the resulting international reaction is arguably more notable than Anning himself. We would expect protests against Trump and due coverage - but 45 articles? AusLondonder (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is a very minor politician: elected because of a vacancy and then disowned by his own party, and then the other one he joined, and rejected by others. There is not much you can say about the egging (was the egg fresh?), and it can be adequately dealt with in his article, which isn't very long.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be wise to wait and see what ongoing impact this incident has. Anning and or his supporters may be charged. Just today a mural has been unveiled to "Egg Boy" in Melbourne. AusLondonder (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could always recreate the article if it becomes a major historical event. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This "mural" is not some permanent feature or mosaic, it's a bit of graffiti (paint on a wall). Alssa1 (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Already covered in the Anning article. -Keepdry (talk)
Keep - This wikipedia article is where I learnt about the incident and I think this incident is significant enough to have its own page. --Armorasha (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - This is newsworthy and a significant part of the coverage around Anning's response to the shooting, however for it to be significant enough for it to warrant its own page there would have to be more to it that 2 days in the news cycle (like charges being laid against the senator and others involved) Playlet (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS GMG ^talk 15:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant international coverage shows notability. --Drako (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand the delete/merge position, but I think there's value in this article. Give it time for the situation to grow, won't hurt anything to allow it to stay around for a month and see how the situation has developed. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--The boy did a highly commendable job but that can be easily covered at Anning's article.∯WBG^converse 19:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did !vote to merge but maybe we ought to hold for a bit. The argument to merge or delete the article isn't as strong now as it was when it was proposed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per our policy on WP:NOTNEWS Merphee (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:NOTNEWS, also does not meet WP:EVENT (no long lasting significance) (yet? WP:TOOSOON also applies), can be broken out of Fraser Anning article if this changes. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Context matters here. Global white supremacy and the push back against it are more important than a random news story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastmbr (talk • contribs) 01:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (Strong against delete): I think this incident is best to be redirected to the Fraser Anning#Christchurch mosque shootings and egg incident section. The section already covered the information adequately as Jack Upland said. I am strongly against deleting the page since it adds size to the database. (WP:CHEAP) —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think there is much point redirecting from Fraser Anning egg incident to Fraser Anning#Christchurch mosque shootings and egg incident. Anyone who searches for it will find it anyway.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Eggboy (Pageviews) redirects to Fraser Anning egg incident now. So why delete the pages when it adds more data? Keeping the pages and turning them to redirect pages helps the event to be more searchable. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This should not have its own article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly re-direct to preserve the history - Coverage of this incident is worldwide now. It's on the rise as well. Karl Twist (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now but possibly *Merge later. I think before any hasty decisions are made it would be worth seeing if this goes anywhere. The case is far from concluded so more news is likely to follow giving greater scope for expansion. Albrighton Titon (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Albrighton Titon above regarding keeping and then a possible *Merge later. I believe it will have continued coverage. Thank you! SunnyBoi (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't keep this article merely because of "coverage" and commentary. The story has barely advanced from the simple act of egging. There have been barely any developments. If Anning is charged (which I think is unlikely), then that belongs at his page. Broader issues like white supremacy should also be addressed at other pages.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yep, agree, this is an event, have a look at "in a nutshell" of WP:EVENT, this incident has not had "lasting major consequences" nor has it received "significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time", to suggest we keep this article because it might does not reflect this standard. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOTNEWS, passing event - if it becomes more then can always be revisited. Covered, or can and and should, in Fraser Anning's article. Aoziwe (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect - the sheer amount of media coverage means that ideally it should have its own article, however in the long run it's probably wiser to incorporate the information into other appropriate and relevant pages. Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is nothing in this article worthy of merge to Fraser Anning. It already looks like this incident was a quarter of his political career which seems to be undue weight for someone going a bit overboard in heckling an independent MP. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adequately covered in the Fraser Anning article. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with redirect. Keep per Albrighton Titon, redirect per Karl Twist.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The article is rather bare-bones compare to other news in Wikipedia. INeedSupport ^:3 02:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is still in the news. [5] wumbolo ^^^ 20:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge with Christchurch mosque shootings#Reactions - also related to hate speech. 2679D (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not newsworthy, and there is no need to merge anything as it is already adequately covered in the Fraser Anning article. I also disagree with the argument that it should be kept in case it becomes newsworthy; by this logic one could justify starting an article about any event and editors' time will continuously be wasted discussing the merits. Maranello10 (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mention in reactions section of shooting. I think it's clear this has already become old news, at least for the most part. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the incident has entered the internet lore. Here's some subsequent coverage:

Man who tackled ‘Egg boy’ facing charges for storming church service with sword and megaphone, The Independent
All About Egg Boy, the Internet’s New Teen Hero, The Cut

From a practical standpoint, there are two merge/redirect targets being suggested. When this happens, it makes sense to have a stand-alone article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see only one editor has suggested a merge to the Christchurch mosque shootings page. This page does not currently mention Fraser Anning. The Fraser Anning page is much more suitable, as it already has a section about the incident (if we are going to merge). This is not an argument for a stand-alone article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very minor brouhahaha, already covered adequately at Fraser_Anning#Christchurch_mosque_shootings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Already covered in Anning's article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2019 (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.