Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 7th Riots, Oakland, California

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 speedy keep per obvious consensus, or merge if anyone feels inclined to do so. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 7th Riots, Oakland, California[edit]

Delete. A minor four-hour riot with no fatalities and, to date, only three criminal charges--Detroit has riots bigger than that every October. Other than the minority shopkeepers terrorized by local anarchists (who are unmentioned in this NPOV-violative article, though they have received a great deal of press coverage), this will be forgotten in a month, and flunks WP:N. The two sentences in BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant are fully sufficient for the weight of the event. THF (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I'm not writing about riots in Detroit, though some of them may very well warrant expansive articles. If you are suggesting the riots were non notable, and do not merit any inclusion in BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant and do not merit their own article, I'd submit to you the riots were covered by the San Francisco Chronicle, The Associated Press, CNN, and The New York Times (see references in article) The international news media (Toronto Star and others) has covered the riots. This article does not make the riots notable, the news media coverage, 120 arrests, 300 affected businesses with broken windows and looted merchandise, burned cars, etc. does.Critical Chris (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS. While there is no WP:RIOT guideline, I think you prove my point with your defense of the event's notability. Compare: December 23 Riots, Kedougou, Senegal, January 9 Riots, London, England, January 9 Riots, Algiers, Algeria, January 9 Riots, El Arish, Egypt, all of which had similar or greater damage and international press coverage, and occurred in the last three weeks. The January 3 Riots, Idaho State Correctional Institution isn't even in the Idaho State Correctional Institution article. (Contrast the scale of an event that is notable: 2008 civil unrest in Greece.) THF (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I am not familiar with the facts of those other cases, and they may all be more notable than this incident, and worthy of an article, and other editors may pick up those topics and write about them in due time. I would offer support and take interest in your efforts to edit good articles about those topics. However my edits and interest concerns this article and subject here. I don't compare things in that way, and don't see the rationale in doing so. Is your nomination for deletion a "last resort" action as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines which state that "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort?"Critical Chris (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't unclear. It's not notable, and, since it's over, it's not getting any more notable over time. THF (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THF, I disagree, I believe, in time, these riots, and the events surrounding them, the way they were handled by police, and other factors, will be seen as a historically significant tipping point in stifling economic investment in Downtown Oakland, which, until recently, had seen a cyclical resurgence and influx of private investment capital. See: 10k_Plan, Uptown_Oakland, Encinal Tower, the Lakeside Skyscrapers in the planning pipeline, the Jack London District for context. It will certainly make property and casualty insurance experience modifications and premiums rise. Now I'm not inserting that myself as original research, but I will add sourced material on same from the news media. More will be written on the damage costs, and other sociological observations in the coming weeks. It's simply too early to write this incident off as not notable, IMHO.Critical Chris (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that as late as 8 December, 2008, the main article on the shooting itself was under discussion for deletion here, with some editors raising the same NOT NEWS issue and others saying it's not notable enough.Critical Chris (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is the only issue here: this is a valid, well-sourced article otherwise. The standards of notability are unclear for civil disturbances, so the arguments about number of fatalities, etc., don't make sense to me. Because of that, and because deletion is the last resort, and because the aftermath of the Oscar Grant shooting is a still a developing event, it seems more prudent to retain this. --Lockley (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant. Content fork if that article becomes to big. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep This article is becoming increasingly better sourced with articles from the mainstream national news media, and is notable enough for a heavyweight like the New York Times to cover. It's too early to conclude these riots were not notable, IMHO. At last count 4 days after the riots, there are no less than 48 media pieces written about it linked here at Vsmooth's "A Better Oakland" - http://www.abetteroakland.com/downtown-oakland-riot-link-round-up/2009-01-08 Critical Chris (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge applicable content to the BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant. Even if all content from the riot article were kept the total size of the merged article would be ~ 50KB. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not a viable spinout candidate; NOTNEWS Sceptre ^(talk) 19:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although I appreciate the author's work in making this detailed and sourced, rioting happens all over the world and it happens on a regular basis. There are times when a riot eclipses the events that triggered it, such as the Watts Riots, where 34 people died after a routine arrest. This is not one of those times. Mandsford (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant#Public reaction. Insufficient notability for a break-out article. WWGB (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to be more inclusive to all the riots that are tied to this shooting. These riots have been extensively covered and have had devastating impact on dozens, perhaps hundreds of minority businesses in the downtown area who were completely uninvolved. Multiple riots have occurred on multiple days and the Bay Area has a history of peaceful protest marches being overcome by anarchist break-out groups. As has been reported here as well. As a result of these riots the Jerry Brown, Ca. Atty. General was brought in to the original case and brought added attention to the investigation of the shooting that started it all. -- Banjeboi 00:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on the BART shooting until and unless the riots demonstrate ongoing notability. Although they did get national coverage, they don't seem to have taken on, for example, the scope of the riots that occurred after the Rodney King verdicts, or certainly the Watts Riots. No prejudice against recreation/breakout if the riots take on sufficient notability. 23skidoo (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's as serious as the LA riots, and it's gonna get worse before it gets better. Maybe rename the article to something less specific (i.e. remove the date.) BoL (Talk) 02:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a definition of "as serious as" that I have not previously seen. 53 people died in the six-day 1992 Los Angeles Riots, with a billion dollars of damage. This was a bunch of anarcho-communist-wannabes smashing a few store windows in a few hours. THF (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2009 (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.