Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Anshun 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 no consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Anshun incident

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

There is frankly too many of these 'incidents' that garner a significant degree of media attention when they occur but long-term notability is questionable at best. Why is this incident significant at all? Did it lead to social change even at a local level? We must curb this type of recentism to preserve the encylopedic nature of Wikipedia. This article is not encyclopedic. It has no long-term significance. Only several months after the event, everyone has forgotten that it ever happened. If this event were to gain significance for whatever reason in the future, then we can consider re-writing it with some sort of historical context. Otherwise it belongs over at Wikinews. Moreover, from a practical perspective, no one is going to come back and edit the article ever again, because of that lack of long-term perspective. It will be left there to rot. If it were not deleted today I will revisit this in two years and will be deleted then. Colipon+(Talk) 14:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a large riot in a major city seems notable to me, and there seems to have been enough media coverage to meet WP:GNG. I'm not sure why you think it is necessary for an event to have "led to social change" in order for it to be notable. If you are concerned with recentism, then the solution to that problem is to write more articles on notable topics from antiquity, rather than deleting articles on notable topics from the present day. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seems to be a recent wave of deletes by user Colipon. This article should be something like 2-3x the size. But due to censorships, few if any editors are contributing and make this event look un-notable. Someone needs to check on the government officials of Guizhou, and the fact that this province rank far lower than other provinces in living standard. Not only that but this event has more "action" than the highly notable Chinese jasmine protest. Benjwong (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a year or two, when the Jasmine Protests have been forgotten, I will nominate it for deletion. My judgment tells me that Wiki consensus will not reach a 'delete' decision on this right now, but I firmly believe that it should be deleted (so, too, should the vast majority of "Occupy" protest articles). Today, I spent sometime going through articles you had created, and find most of them to be extremely interesting. I like reading them. You are really doing the encyclopedia a service by covering under-reported events, and I do not want to discourage you. I absolutely agree that government officials in Guizhou should be checked. This will not stop me from advocating for deletion articles that I do not think meet the basic notability criteria. Colipon+(Talk) 00:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these notabililty criteria takes in consideration real life obstacles like censorship and manipulation of history etc. WP:notability is just a basic rule, that is all. When you have a population of a billion, and .000000001% of the people even make it to a wikipedia page, these conditions do not get accounted for. If you had 100 editors in this article. I guarantee you, it will look very different. Benjwong (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google searches prove difficult to find this event. Wikipedia is not a first source news provider. Wikipedia is not a blog hosting service, and this article could be considered as the equivalent of a news in brief blog entry. Not notable a story in its own right doktorb _words^deeds 07:46, 18 November 2011 (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.