Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Huangpu River dead pigs 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. From a policy based perspective, this is a mess with almost every comment not grounded in firm policy from both sides. For example its ill-considered to mention this in the Shanghai and the copyright licensing for Wikinews is different from us. Considering this isn't a BLP or any other major policy violation, this is no consensus by default. Renominate after a month or so. Secret ^account 23:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Huangpu River dead pigs incident[edit]

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

Widely reported event. However, WP is not a newspaper. No lasting encyclopedic value. Randykitty (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if 12,000 dead pigs turned up in an American or British river during the national political congress we could predict that the event was significant enough that giant press coverage would eventually reduce to notable permanent book coverage as the 2010 Xingang Port oil spill did. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that happens, this surely would merit its own article. However, at this point my crystal ball is defect and nobody seems to be able to repair it, so I don't know whether this is going to happen or not. As far as I can see now, this event will be forgotten two months from now and never talked about again. If it turns out in the future that I was wrong and that there is lasting interest for this event, we can re-create an article. But at this point, I have to disagree with Zanhe below: this does not meet WP:EVENT. --Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

by that criteria thousands of articles must be deleted..obscure TV shows and battles and small town high schools..no, this is likely to be talked about just like the dog food poisoning in Red ChinaBamler2 (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This incident does not require its own article at present - it is sufficiently covered by the Shanghai page. Perhaps we add more detail to that page? The concise description there seems sufficient, and is well referenced.AnthonyW90 (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't expect everything that has happened in one of the world's most important cities to be covered on one page. Would you say that everything notable that has ever happened in New York or London should be covered in the articles about those cities rather than in separate articles? If we followed that path we'd end up with a pretty small and pretty useless encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this event is interesting, unusual, and widely reported worldwide. It surely meets WP:EVENT criteria. Agree with Phil Bridger that it should be covered in its own article, rather than the Shanghai article. -Zanhe (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to wikinews Wikipedia is not news. Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.active 20:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep but move and redirect to Pork Soup Scandal This scandal is widely reported internationally. It is much more reported than the murder of zoey zane, a wikipedia article that was afd and stayed. The current title violates wikipedia rules against original research since nobody uses.the term. Pork Soup Scandal is the commonly used term. Likewise, we use the term Watergate, not 1972 Democratic Office Burglary. Bamler2 (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using a descriptive title for an event with no widely accepted name is standard practice, not original research. Unlike "Watergate", the term "Pork soup scandal" has only been used by WSJ and has not been adopted by any other news source, so we can't use that coined term. -Zanhe (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

respectfully, not true. Many Chinese sources use pork soup scandal or pork soup incidentBamler2 (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most respected Chinese media report the event as the "Huangpu River floating dead pigs incident", and that's the title of the article on the Chinese wiki. -Zanhe (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~rename~~ If we follow Zanhe, then remove 2013 as this is original research and the 2014 pork soup scandal has not happened yet. Bamler2 (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MEETS ALL THE WP:N guidelines THEREFORE IS A ~~KEEP~~. IF WE GET RID OF AFD WE WILL WRITE MORE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure this is the best title, but this incident has received massive and protracted international news coverage sufficient to make this more than just a NOTNEWS situation. Carrite (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2013 (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.