Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 15, 2003 anti-war protest

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 of the debate was speedy keep. Kimchi.sg 08:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest[edit]

waste of server resources to list each and every one of these things, unless we're going to make an article every single time a bunch of non-notable people get together in one place--Chapline R Vine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 04:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad faith nom made in violation of WP:POINT.--Jersey Devil 04:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, your little WP:NPA violation asside, there is no bad faith, i just don't feel that wikipedia should be a soapbox for each and every fringe lunatic on the internet--Chapline R Vine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 04:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also violation of WP:Spam, [1] [2]--Jersey Devil 04:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy, and there's nothing wrong with sending a welcome message to a bunch of people, however, editing your comment after someone has already replied to it is considered somewhat unethical--Chapline R Vine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 04:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you do know that we can see every edit you make don't you? It was a call for people to vote on this afd. It was previously this and you removed it here after I pointed it out.--Jersey Devil 04:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any proof of intent there, it was created as a simple welcome template, you really shouldn't assume malice in other people's actions--Chapline R Vine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 04:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A signifigant day of protest, and not a strong enough case made for the deletion of this article. Darquis 04:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Stale. non-notable except among limited number of left wing activists Merecat 04:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to provide notability, it is listed as the largest anti-war protest in history by Guinness World Records [3]--Jersey Devil 04:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - good, then I look foward to the article on Bowling Ball Stacking that you're about to go out and start--Chapline R Vine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 04:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that the preceding comment by ChaplineRVine was changed from referencing elbow licking to the Bowling Ball Stacking link after it was pointed out that the elbow licking article on the Guiness site was stating that elbow licking is a myth. That edit is somewhat ironic given ChaplineRVine's earlier comment that “editing your comment after someone has already replied to it is considered somewhat unethical”. —GrantNeufeld 05:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep No reason presented for deletion. Kotepho 04:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable as it's apparently the largest anti-war protest ever, and also well referenced. Not every anti-war protest would be notable, but I can't think of any good argument saying this one isn't. BryanG 04:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - huge global event with significant media coverage. FreplySpang (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I too think this is a violation of WP:POINT, as the stated argument for nomination is so specious. By the way, listing elbow licking, which is stated by Guiness to be a myth, "so stop telling us about it", is really not a very effective way of attacking Guiness' certification that the protest was indeed a world record breaker. You grok? --Fuhghettaboutit 05:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well written and referenced article about a major event in the anti-war movement. - Iorek85 05:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this event spanned a significant portion of the globe and was the single largest one-day protest (not just anti-war, but any kind of protest) event in human history. Comment: Nominator has (as of 04:55, 30 April 2006, UTC) one edit outside of user space and this AFD, and the user space edits, aside from his own page, appear to all be related to this AFD. —GrantNeufeld 05:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Shouldn't articles that have achieved good article status be immune from AFD nomination? Also, an article that has successfully completed peer review would similarly seem to be inappropriate for AFD nomination since one could presume that if it merited deletion that would have become apparent during the peer review. —GrantNeufeld 07:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason given to delete, and a good article at that. —porg es_(talk) 06:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep let me see, how can I accuse the nominator of WP:POINT without violating WP:AGF or WP:NPA, hmm, sorry I can not. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 07:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - not only was this a notable event, the article itself looks more like a candidate for GA than a candidate for AfD. Metamagician3000 07:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these protests were unusually large (1 million people in London alone) and on a global scale and hence notable. Vashti 08:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree that there is the spectre of bad faith in this nomination -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:16, 30 April 2006 (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.