Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protests of 2019 (2nd nomination)

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. The keep arguments have not presented a broadly policy based argument that debunks the synth argument. Spartaz Humbug! 15:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protests of 2019

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Protests of 2019 (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)

Per previous AfD nomination and talkpage comments since then: this article does not document a true phenomenon. The limited scholarly coverage is either speculation, focuses on certain regions, or debates the possibility of an attitude towards protests, without any certainty. Since the last AfD, it has been built on, but not improved. It now connects more unrelated protests indiscriminately, and is falling foul of WP:NOTCATALOG. The final motivation for nominating at AfD now is the addition of information regarding the Twin Cities riots. Note, the information is only about the riots, not protests, and is obviously unconnected in every way: occurring in 2020 in a world very different to the one left behind by any protests in 2019, and motivated by a racist murder rather than whatever global discontent is the supposed connection between the rest. The addition of this indicates that this article obviously has no connecting thread and is being used as an unnecessary catalog of protests. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Kingsif (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Kingsif (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kingsif (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Kingsif (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There does not seem to be a subject here. The references are mostly sources discussing various protests that are going on at the time but this does nothing to mark 2019 out as special or the various protests as linked. The events are real but the link alleged is original research. A similarly spurious article could probably be written about almost any other year in modern times. (Please nobody take that as a challenge!) Despite this we have no such other articles despite there being many years where there were a lot of protests. We do have an article on the Protests of 1968 but that is quite clearly a genuine subject in exactly the way that this isn't. 1968 is still remembered for its worldwide wave of (at least partially linked) protests decades later and this receives ongoing attention from historians. 2019 is not long gone but pretty much nobody is talking about a "Global Protest Wave of 2019". It gets one hit in Google Scholar, one hit in Google News and guess what the top hit for the phrase is in a normal Google search? Yep. It's this very article! I also found this and this which sound promising until, yep, they both lead straight back to this very article as being the source of the phrase. So, insofar as this is a subject at all it is only a subject because somebody wrote a Wikipedia article claiming that it was and we failed to delete it before a few people started to assume it must be real because it was in Wikipedia. It is time to correct that mistake. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. While some may argue that the string of protests that occurred last year may appear insignificant to each other, there is definitely a relation. The protests that occurred last year was like no other occasion in recent history (for the 2010s at least). Firstly, its frequency is stronger; they sprang up to the extent huger than what most of the world saw in any other 2010s years, and their actions more radical – quick to amplify, as people face against authority in a scale bolder than ever. Second, a vast majority of the uprisings last year sprung in part due to growing disappointment and mistrust over authority. There had been studies and polls that show that favourability among democracy and justice has declined drastically worldwide over the years, and dissatisfaction against them being on an "all time high" which lead to resentment towards governments, and eventually social conflicts; this is especially true for the Latin American countries, Hong Kong, and Catalonia, which in turn are separate protests yet with the same motive. So to say that there was a "global protest wave" in 2019 isn't wrong, as there was a certain pattern that had formed consequently, one that stands more prominent than other previous years. The reason why there is no "Protests of 2018" page or "Protests of 2017" is due to the fact that there were fewer large-scaled protests and less revolutionary social movements marching, as opposed to 2019 who had entire parliaments raided, head of leaders overthrown (and even exiled), and several controversial bills suspended. Do we get to see events like this happen in multiple countries in different continents every year? No, because 2019 was an exception, and a significant one. My point is, it is clear to see that the protests in 2019 have been proven to be more profoundly vocal, radical in change, and largely revolutionary by nature as opposed to any other given year in the same time frame (2010s, say). While I must acknowledge that their degree of relation is not as strong as say the Revolutions of 1989, we must acknowledge that these protests – albeit their dispersed geographical distribution and direct cause – does occur under similar circumstances, share same roots, and showcase the sociological value of how democratic politics can and have moulded into collective mistrust and criticism. We may not see the effects now, but this will definitely be realized the sooner we head to the future. --Azurevanilla ash (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an argument that you could make and get published. I'm not convinced either way but it is certainly arguable and I'm not here to tell you that you are wrong. The problem is that Wikipedia is not the place to make that argument. We need external reliable sources to have already made all the links and declared that this alleged global wave of protests was actually a global wave of linked protests. We can't synthesise this for ourselves. I had a look at the two links you give. The BBC article about dissatisfaction with democracy doesn't mention protest at all and the CNBC one only mentions it in a picture caption and not the article text. So, no, these articles do not support claims of a protest wave themselves. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. Firstly, this is an ongoing debate as the existence of this page has been challenged, so I have every right to make an argumentative point here; asides, I am trying to reason you (and everyone else who may be like-minded) why this page should remain up and running online. Secondly, there actually has been reports of similarity not only formed by whoever started this article (and the contributors that follow), but also establishments by reliable resources as well. Several outlets such as The New Yorker, Voice of America, and NBC to name a few, have already begun acknowledging and agreeing on certain common motives and roots for these conflicts. In this case, the protests discussed in this page have underlying roots tracing back to demands for governmental reform and more political transparency. This is the same notion that goes with the Protests of 1968; they may seem unrelated and sporadic at first glance, but eventually does get to have underlying connections once uncovered. It's only because of the recent occurrences of these protests that may obscure their string of similarity for now. Azurevanilla ash (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no shortages of sources from news and scholarly articles on the notableness of 2019 as a global protests wave. It is not our place to personally judge whether we believe the scholarly analysis.Ingebot (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I search for "Global Protest Wave of 2019" in Google Scholar I get just one hit and zero hits in Google Newspapers. Of course I get some hits for "protests of 2019" because there were protests in 2019, some of them notable ones, but I'm not seeing anything to link them in a "global protest wave" or to suggest that 2019 was extraordinary in this respect, even if it had more protests than average. In fact, I'm far from convinced of that. I tried counting raw hits in Google Scholar and the results are not encouraging:
"Protests of 2014": 224
"Protests of 2015": 425
"Protests of 2016": 122
"Protests of 2017": 63
"Protests of 2018": 15
"Protests of 2019": 40
(Average = 148)
Even if we assume that some articles about events in 2019 might still be working through their publication process, this is deeply unimpresive. If there is no shortage of sources for this alleged wave then I'm certainly not finding them. Maybe the article is misnamed? Does this wave of protests have some other name? What should we be searching for in order to find all these scholarly articles about the alleged global wave of protests if not the two titles given in the article? If this is a real thing, like the Arab Spring or the fall of Communist Europe, then I'll happily withdraw my delete !vote but I'm not seeing anything to support this. As I say, maybe I am looking in entirely the wrong places. Where should I be looking instead? --DanielRigal (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is 2020 now and there is nothing to link those protests to the overall narrative here which relates to 2019. There will always be protests, every single year. If you choose to link them all then this "wave" started way before 2019 and if you don't choose to link them, except when there is a demonstrable link, then here is no single wave phenomenon for this article to be about. Unless police brutality against black people in the USA started in 2019 (It didn't!) then it does not fit into the narrative that this article is pushing. Of course, it does fit onto the overall history of police brutality against black people in the USA, and it is right that we cover that extensively as it is a large and serious topic, but that is not what this particular article is about and we have other, better, articles for that. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal: Don't worry, Daniel, when someone comes to close this they will look at the arguments, not just the number of !votes, and see that there's nothing saying 'keep' with any sense attached. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second the view that the 2020 BLM Protests are in fact very good evidence of why there was no joint, global 2019 wave of protests and so this article should be deleted. We can clearly identify where and how the 2020 protests began, they are clearly described as a single global phenomenon in reliable sources, they are not a continuation of what happened in 2019 because we know their cause happened this year, and claims that they are instead highlight that 2019 was really no different to any other year in having protests at various places in the world that shared some themes and differed in other ways. This article is basically a bunch of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
--Keepcalmandchill (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^^THIS. we have a damage control board lighting up like a Christmas tree here, people. everyone who wants to help track should report for duty to the CIC. for everyone who doesn't want to, that's fine. I assume no one has a problem with our retaining the entry for Full House (season 1), right? well.... that's good! --Sm8900 (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A classic example of the major issue: that source is nothing more than a list of all the major protests, and does not attempt to connect them as one movement, or it would have said that. Lots of protests happen every year, more in 2019 than most, but it's not a thing. Kingsif (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article was built with a mixture of opinions and jornalists writings trying to find similarities and differences among all the protests that took place in 2019, but the reality is that this is not a wave of protests, but several protests with objectives, magnitudes and different ideological positions. Unlike the Arab Spring and the Revolutions of 1989, there is no real connection between all protests listed in this article. They are individual and disconnected protests. --Fontaine347 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no disputing the notability or references of the article, simply a discussion as to why it exists. I am not really clear why it would need a link to bind them together, the title says it all - they happened in 2019. Maybe renaming it to List of protests of 2019 would solve the issue? Ifnord (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, all list articles have to also have a good connection as justification for the standalone list article existing. Otherwise, make articles for all the notable entries and use categorization. E.g. there is no 'Films of 2019' article. Also, such a title would suggest that there is something about the films released in 2019 that connects them, like 'Films of the New Wave' or something - not including list in the article title suggests that the subject is a topic. There is also no 'List of films released in 2019' article, because there is no justification for having such a list. Before you mention it, 2019 in film exists, but is not a random list of films, it's an overview of the industry in that year. Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is no rule that says Protests of 2019 cannot be based on the same notability standard as 2019 in film, or that it needs to be in a timeline format just to have validity as an article. this article Protests in 2019 is no different in validity than 2019 in film; it simply uses a narrative encyclopedic format, rather than a timeline format. kind of appropriate, since this is an encyclopedia, wouldn't you say? and also, this is at least as notable as Friends (season 1), which, naturally does have its very own full-fledged entry here. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are two very, very different proposals - redirect in this case is more akin to deletion, so why !vote keep? FOARP (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the Keep comments do not appear to address any notability policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I responded to a comment above, explaining why this shouldn't even exist as 'list of protests in 2019'. I've copied to down here so that it's more visible for editors responding (I also left the comment after the relist). all list articles have to also have a good connection as justification for the standalone list article existing. Otherwise, make articles for all the notable entries and use categorization. E.g. there is no 'Films of 2019' article. Also, such a title would suggest that there is something about the films released in 2019 that connects them, like 'Films of the New Wave' or something - not including list in the article title suggests that the subject is a topic. There is also no 'List of films released in 2019' article, because there is no justification for having such a list. Before you mention it, 2019 in film exists, but is not a random list of films, it's an overview of the industry in that year. Kingsif (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Idan (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm really on the fence here. Many of the sources there and here in the AfD are opinions and columnists, which I regard as being near useless. There are some actual news sources too, though, like the BBC and WaPo, where they've made some speculative comments on the protests, but these aren't opinion articles so we should consider them. These sources paint a picture of common themes as the reason for the protests, and define an explicit phenomenon as "the protestors' year". So I disagree with the comment that previous comments made absolutely no reference to WP:N - there are some WP:RS arguments in this discussion (eg by Keepcalmandchill. I'm personally on the fence because the premise of the article still feels icky, but I think it may have potential to be cleaned up further. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles published in newspapers making comparisons between various things. To pick some obvious examples, Brexit and Trump are often compared, as were Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders. That this was done is not evidence that they are part of linked phenomena sufficiently notable for an article. Populist wave was quite sensible simply redirected to Populism as that was what is being discussed. Similarly, what is being discussed here is the general subject of protest, not something that began or indeed ended in 2019.FOARP (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Protests go on every year, and I've seen nothing unique about 2019 that would prompt someone to look for such an article or to have any idea what it would contain. Deb (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Extraordinary claims require extraordinary substantiation. In this case, we are asked to believe that there was a global wave of protests in 2019 and that these were a single linked phenomenon. However, the level of substantiation you would expect to see if anyone of note actually considered this to be an actual thing simply isn't there instead we have articles comparing protests, or discussing the year 2019. 2019 may have had more protests than other years, but if it did then the subject is 2019, the year, or the events of 2019, or a list of protests ongoing in 2019, all of which already have their own articles. As such this article is duplication. As regards the individual protests discussed in this article, every single one of them that is actually notable already has its own page. This article is thus a WP:COATRACK for various political theories favoured by editors about world politics and economics in general. Finally I think there is a definite WP:SUSTAINED issue here in that almost as soon as the year ended, people stopped talking about protests in 2019 - for a supposed year-long, global wave of protest, you would expect the coverage of it to be sustained beyond the year itself. FOARP (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One additional point - it is instructive that when the same topic was discussed on FR Wiki they opted to delete. FOARP (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe some of these are notable on their own, maybe not, but there isn't any indication that they are connected in any meaningful way except for occurring in the same year and that's the only reason to justify the articles existence. There's also zero solid evidence that there were more protests in 2019 compared to any other year, but even if there was it wouldn't necessarily or automatically warrant an article about it anyway. It could just be that there's more people on the planet or some other "benign" reason. There would have to be some pretty solid and in-depth evidence to suggest otherwise and that evidence clearly doesn't exist. Nor could there be IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. there does not need to be any objective proof that the Protests of 2019 need to to be inherently unique in comparison to all other years, or all other protests. this article simply chronicles the protests that took place in 2019. it is no different than any other historical article focusing upon a single year; and obviously, we have myriads of such articles, such 2020 in sports, 2020 in film, 2020 in aviation. how is this any different, and why should it need meet a different standard of WP:Notable? --Sm8900 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment. You are all so concerned with establishing that Protests of 2019 is no different than Protests of 2010 would be, so why have one if we don't have the other? well--surprise-- 2019 is NOT 2010. we ARE in a global moment here. it is just so obvious that none of you notice it, just as a fish doesn't notice water. we have global crises, stemming from the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which led to the Arab Spring, which led to the Arab Winter, which led to the Syrian Civil War, which led to the European migrant crisis, which led to the Yellow Vest Movement. and what about the entry 2018–2020_Arab_protests? why is that entry able to link several different protests in different countries, with no objection by the community of editors? to which you can add 2019–2020 Iranian protests. (yes, it is not listed in that article, since as you know, Iranians are not Arabs.) and also, the migrant crisis in Europe has fueled a backlash by native-born residents of those countries, as well as waves of discontent by the migrants themselves.
and of course, climate change has caused Young People Lead Millions To Protest Global Inaction On Climate Change. but the whole populist movement has its roots in the worldwide displacement of refugees due to the regional conflicts of the Arab Spring. and also, please don't foreget that More than 500 arrested after protests and clashes as India water crisis worsens, in June 2019; Millions of people are running out of usable water in the southern Indian city of Chennai, which is experiencing major droughts and a rapidly worsening water crisis. Should I continue? Do you really want me to? et cetera. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, based on your comment, I will have removed the superfluous comments, i.e. those expressing disagreement. I retained one comment above, which agreed with a point made above, and also a single other comment that sought to genuinely respond to a point above made by a commenter here. thanks for your input. --Sm8900 (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2020 (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/Protests_of_2019_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=962723290"