Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ole miss riots of 2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. WP:NOTNEWS topic that is now being sufficiently covered at University_of_Mississippi#Recent_history where it belongs (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ole miss riots of 2012

[edit]
Ole miss riots of 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC) ...William 19:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
good-faith confusion
Nothing in the link you posted indicates that UsedEdgesII is blocked, or a sockpuppet. It is, in fact, a request by UsedEdgesII to block another, allegedly sockpuppeting, user. complainer (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An editor in that discussion said "The person who filed this report and the SPI is a sock of User:Morning277." If "this report" refers to that section, then "the person who filed this report" is indeed UsedEdgesII. But UEII isn't mentioned in the linked SPI. I'll ask that editor to clarify. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That turned out to not be necessary. Just read a bit closer. UsedEdges is, in fact, a blocked sockpuppet. --BDD (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia may not be a newspaper, but this is not a particularly transient piece of news, and it's already a respectably-sized internet phenomenon regardless of that. complainer (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are you kidding me? There's absolutely no reason to expect WP:PERSISTENCE for such a minor event, so WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (#2 especially) is legitimate reason to delete. If anyone is still talking about this a month from now, I'll make the article myself. --BDD (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentYou really don't expect a bunch of supposedly educated students going around chanting "nigger" and burning the president in effigy on the same site of one of the most famous Civil Rights Movement riots, 50 years later to be something people will remember? I don't want to get into a WP:CRYSTALBALL discussion, but if you stick to your promise, you'd better make some backup. And no, I am not kidding you. complainer (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between a memorable event and a notable one. I remember this, but it's unlikely it could stand as its own article, despite the fact that most news outlets around the country mentioned it for a day or two. If anything serious comes of this, it may merit mention at Assassination threats against Barack Obama or similar articles. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- not noteworthy enough per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. It may be noteworthy enough for mention in the University of Mississippi article but not one standing on its own. Kierzek (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is worldwide WP:RS available for this article, far more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article such as this outline much more than the event that actually took place. This article explains how the University feels about what happened. This is a situation that the school wishes to be better understood. The point of wikipedia is to spread knowledge. It is important to the faculty and staff of the University of Mississippi for people to be informed that as a University, we do condone racism and are embarrassed by it. Please keep this article, but help edit if that is what it needs. This article has been edited by current Ole Miss students of all majors, backgrounds, and ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hottytoddy1 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, or possible redirect/merge. The incident got a fair bit of media coverage, but it really seems to come down to some petty hooliganism by a few dozen drunk racist frat kids on an election night. It might be worth a brief mention in the Ole Miss article at the most. -Helvetica (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep - WP:NOTNEWS is often badly abused, but it seems to make sense this time. It has driven reactions and it is worth a mention somewhere, but given the sourcing so far I am unsure it deserves a complete article. I can't say however -it depends on the suitable targets and the depth of coverage. So far what is in the article could be merged, but if someone is interested on working on this and coverage multiplies, it could well be a stand-alone article. --Cyclopiatalk 14:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article about non-noteworthy incident. AutomaticStrikeout 00:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Are you kidding? Several students gather to protest and you call it "riots"? This is a totally unimportant event, like many of such protests across the world. Wikipedia is not a tabloid! - Darwinek (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to University of Mississippi under a section for the students or events. This is a little premature and after fleshing out the article with some sources, I'm thinking that it probably won't lead to very much. It's easy to say that "______ and _______ reported on this in _____ country", but ultimately even the reports of the riot are starting to say "gee, it really wasn't a riot really..." It might be worth a mention on the college page at most, but ultimately I don't see this having any true lasting notability at this point in time. It doesn't help that all of the sources tend to reference back to one another and few of them really have any die-hard concrete evidence that all of what happened actually happened at Ole Miss. It's clear that you have a bunch of stupid drunk morons shouting some racist stuff, but I'm not sure if this is really enough to merit an article at this time. If anyone wants to userfy it, that's fine, but I think that an article just on the "riot" is premature. It should definitely be watched, though. Or maybe incubated.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fleshed the article out more and sourced it appropriately, but doing so really only hammered home that this doesn't really have enough lasting notability at this moment to where I'd say that it should have its own article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that a merge would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Was this little gathering really significant enough as to be a defining point in the history of the University of Mississippi? I'm not sure we'd consider that a valid action at a school without a history of racism. Whether that history makes this relevant or prejudices us to think so is, I suppose, up for discussion. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It really should be deleted; I only suggested the alternative (of a brief mention in the school article) as a alternative if consensus was to keep. However, it would need to be re-write with all the facts to meet NPOV, as you point out, BDD. Kierzek (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, the whole point of this event is that the University of Mississippi is quite the opposite of a school without a history of racism; it is, in fact, possibly the university with the best-known history of racism in the United States, chiefly because of the Ole Miss riot of 1962. But this is not the point. The point is whether the event is notable, i.e. whether it is covered by sources (which it is) and complies to wikipedia's 1000 other inclusion policies, in this case chiefly WP:NOTNEWS. WP:NPOVis about how to write not about whether to write. If this event blackens the reputation of Ole miss, well, that's WP:TOUGHSHIT, which is an unwritten, but rather obvious policy. complainer (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per basic common sense. What do we have here? A few students got drunk and got a bit unruly, and some people called it a "riot" on a web forum. That sort of thing happens every day, and hardly merits the status of news, let alone meeting encyclopic standards which go beyond mere news. If for any bizarre reason this is kept then it needs to be renamed: "Ole miss" is pure gobbledygook to many, if not most, of our readers. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? It happens every day? Every day, students at colleges all over the country get together to call the president "nigger" and burn his photo? So much for WP:NOTNEWS, since it is certainly news to me. Qworty (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try reading the sources. They say only that a handful of students were drunk and that one or two may have shouted racist remarks. All of the reliable sources make the point that the description of this event as a riot is incorrect. I have nothing against people drinking alcohol (I do so regularly myself), and everything against the shouting of racist remarks, but both are things that happen all the time on campuses and elsewhere so are nothing worthy of an encyclopedia article . Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we merge it, let's not forget to add something about the KKK rally they had at Ole Miss recently [1]. I haven't examined the Ole Miss article closely yet to determine where it should go, but it would be appropriate to put all of these racist incidents together. Qworty (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It might be time to make an article entitled Racism at Ole Miss or Racism at the University of Mississippi since Ole Miss has a recorded history of it beyond the norm for other colleges. That way it can be a catch-all for episodes such as this as well as responses from other people when it comes to racism there, such as the candlelight vigil or whatnot. This one particular incident might not merit an individual entry at this time, but it would be good in an overall article. If we do create it, I have a feeling that it will be one prone to vandalism and "good faith" edits from people who want to distance themselves from their fellow students that do the stuff like that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had been thinking about that too. Its existence would certainly upset some people, but I'm reminded of WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. Tread carefully... --BDD (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the present article does not stand, I would support the creation of Racism at the University of Mississippi. We shouldn't shy away from creating it just because apologists for the university might vandalize it. Qworty (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ole_miss_riots_of_2012&oldid=1138180687"