- 2011 London riots (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Apparently you cannot 'Afd' a page linked-to from Wikipedia's homepage. I'm not sure about that, but I'm following the closing admin's advice and going here instead (this was the original Article for deletion). Is it right that we should have this breaking-news page "because people expect it"? I find it truly frightening that over 54,000 people have already gone to Wikipedia for breaking news. Wikipedia is not a professional news agency. There is an argument around that the media in general is fanning the flames, and the troubles have apparently spread as far as Toxteth in Liverpool now (ie as well as London and Birmingham). It is Wikipedia incidentally that has christened this the "2011 London riots". Isn't that WP:Original Research? And isn't Wikipedia (or wasn't it perhaps I should say) supposed to be an encyclopedia? Most criticism of the media isn't heavily reported in the media, which is something of a weak spot for Wikipedia at all times - but here Wikipedia is acting like it is News Central for the whole English speaking world - entirely based on recycled sources put together by anonymous amateurs. This is surely not what Wikipedia was originally supposed to be about. Also (importantly) I felt that the Speedy Keep of my Deletion Proposal was a deliberate attempt to stifle reader-seen debate on closing the article. I'm still getting pressure to shut up as I write. What is wrong with a 'delete template' being on top of the page? Does it look unprofessional to all those 54,000 readers? WP IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL NEWS OUTLET. I've not "abused" anything - Article For Deletion was the appropriate place to go. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Matt Lewis (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been snowball disruption elsewhere in the UK - to such a degree that the original title is looking foolish in a number of ways. You need time to analyse these things - we can't effectively be part of them. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What you could do is to let the dust (i.e. the wiki process) settle a bit in which things can better be organized (and no, I'm not saying indefinitely, but since we're getting a lot of new information as I speak, it might be better to wait and then sort out; that seemed to work well with the 2011 Wisconsin protests, which gained a similar level of media frenzy here in the U.S.). –MuZemike 03:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it so much wiser to remove it and wait? Matt Lewis (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep major riots are historical events worthy of WP articles. Read WP and you will find them. No valid reason for deletion. No reason for whitewash Hmains (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you 'whitewash' breaking news from Wikipedia? It's not the BBC for crying out loud. And show some AGF. Matt Lewis (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Whether you, with your personal vendetta, like it or not; people will come to wikipedia for information on noteworthy events. If we have credible sources for the event, as we did in this case, we should provide that information. There is no need to wait.--AndrewTindall (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've stayed up hours to do this. How dare you say I've got a "personal vendetta". To who for god's sake? You people are not journalists writing for a newspaper, don't you undersand that? Matt Lewis (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Endorse It's definitely generated enough coverage to be kept, and now it's on the main page. If you have some kind of trouble with the naming, take it to the talk page, not the deletion process. I see nothing wrong with the closure. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and close this as a waste of time. The nominator needs to grow up. Did he see the original AFD? Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I don't appreciate name calling, though I do agree that obviously this article needs to be kept. I believe that we all have the right to our opinions, no matter how unpopular. Bobnorwal (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The worst riots in England in 30 years and we are discussing deletion? The article clearly satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (events). WWGB (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, bearing in mind that Wikipedia isn't a professional anything, that that's the point, and therefore by your logic shouldn't even be used. Contact your ISP or legislative branch if you don't want people reading it. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (edit conflict) x2 Wikipedia is not a battleground WP:NOTBATTLE. The original decision clearly satisfies speedy keep (WP:SK) as a procedural closure as it is linked to from the main page (Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Procedural_closure). Other pages relevant here are WP:SNOW & WP:POINT also WP:STEAM seems to relate to this issue if anyone want’s to read it.
|