Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Price on Pollution rally

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. postdlf (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Price on Pollution rally[edit]

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

Non-notable public rally. Article created on same day as rally so yet lacks historical significance. If it was a spontaneous public reaction, it might be notable, but it was actually organised by political pressure groups to promote their cause. LordVetinari (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. This rally's probably over-estimated attendance is perhaps notable for being so small and insignificant but I doubt that's a criteria for inclusion. MLA (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Far too quick to slap the tag on this one. It was tagged before I even had a chance to add references, so what do you expect? Content is extremely notable here in Australia, that is by no means in dispute. Attendance (see note below). Was organised in a matter of days by community groups, was entirely non-political. It now has images, is well referenced with quality verifiable sources and has plenty of room for expansion. Hasty deletion is counter-productive to the goals of WP. I move for the removal of the tag immediately. Nick carson (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note on attendance: Estimated by SMH (a conservative newspaper) to be 8,000. Some attendees estimated around 10,000. Victoria Police estimated 6,000-8,000. Independent crowd-estimators estimated 7,000, building to 7,500 by event end. 7,500 appears to be a very accurate and reasonable estimate, perhaps even too low, if anything.

Comment Whether 13 minutes after article creation is too quick is debatable as is whether the entire article could have been created first in a sandbox or outside Wikipedia. I agree that the content may be notable here in Australia (at least, by the criteria of the Sydney Morning Herald, Indymedia and Yahoo7) but is it notable in an encyclopedia? Why is this particular rally historically significant that it should have its own article? In other words, what sets this rally apart from the hundreds of other rallies that take place each year? I also question the significance of a rally that, as the article and its sources admit, was organised by political pressure organisations for the purposes of promoting their causes. I also note that one of the cited sources has used the image from the wikipedia article (if one follows the copyright claims from both locations). This raises questions of the reliability of that site as source for Wikipedia. LordVetinari (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's sort out a few facts: The image used was one I took and have given permission for it to be uploaded to both WP and Indymedia under Creative Commons, what is wrong with that? The community groups are not political pressure organisations. It is not up to us to question the significance of any rally's inclusion in a free, public encyclopaedia. The article meets all of WP's policy requirements. I again request that the deletion tag to be removed immediately as all justification for deletion was passed prior to the completion of the article in it's present form. Not creating the article in sandbox does not provide justification for deletion. Nick carson (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for explaining about the picture. As you may understand, it isn't at first clear to a casual reader who happens to see both pages. Regarding Greenpeace & co., however, I question their characterisation as "community groups". They're hardly in the same calibre as a weekly sewing circle or a meetup, especially when considering their degree of organisation (as described in their respective WP articles) but perhaps we just have different interpretations of the word "community". I won't press the issue. As for notability, significant coverage in reliable sources does not imply that everything those sources significantly cover is worthy of an encyclopedia article. As I understand the article's topic, the government proposed a policy, some people said nay, then some people said yay. Why does people saying yay justify a separate article? Is there an article on the opposition's campaign? I would have thought that the price on pollution rally, if it were mentioned on WP at all, would only consist of a sentence or two here. Even that may be too much, as people oppose or support their governments all the time. Nonetheless, significant coverage does not guarantee notability, it merely presumes notability unless community consensus determines otherwise. Incidentally, regarding the sources, I suggest removing the Indymedia references as this source demonstrates that Indymedia is not independent of the subject as required by the GNG. Finally, as the AfD tag itself states, the tag cannot be removed until the discussion is closed so I guess we're both going to have to wait and see who has provided the strongest arguments. By the way, Nick, I added the "sandbox" comment solely to balance with your "too fast" suggestion. Anyway, I'll try to avoid commenting on this topic now and instead leave it up to the community. Although I respect you for presenting clear and civil arguments, it's plain we disagree with each other and I see no need for us to continue our little tiff. I look forward to editing with you in the future, preferably under different circumstances. LordVetinari (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reliable sources concluded that this topic is notable by giving significant coverage to it. As for historical significance, that takes time and those above requiring historical significance can be understood as agreeing to give this article more time so that the topic's historical significance can be properly evaluated. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:EVENT and WP:EFFECT. rallies happen all the time around the world. the vast majority like this do not qualify for a WP article. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Rallies and protests happen across the country often. This is nothing new and since it was held by GetUp! which is known to rent crowds it is even less notable144.136.101.108 (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is a suitable page about a movement or organization ,or proposed legislation to redirect it to, this can be redirected. Otherwise, it's just a relatively minor news event. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 18 March 2011 (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.