Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Reclaim Brixton protest

:{{la|2015 Reclaim Brixton protest}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2015_Reclaim_Brixton_protest Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|2015 Reclaim Brixton protest}})

This was a pretty run of the mill demonstration with no major long term impact. There is nothing here that distinguishes this demonstration from hundreds just like it that occur all over the world every day. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or news. Subject fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

::Note This AfD was created at the request of IP 146.199.151.33. I fully endorse the request per the above statement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete run of the mill protest, does not merit its own article. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. A non-notable local protest that lasted barely an afternoon. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N. –146.199.151.33 (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strong keep (Creator) Received significant coverage in the UK and overseas. Meets WP:GNG. I feel many editors are misinterpreting WP:NOTNEWS, which states'For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.' This is nothing of the sort, and was a noteworthy protest. WP:NOTNEWS makes crystal clear 'As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events'. I also have a hunch that if this protest had occurred in the United States there would be no dispute about keeping the article AusLondonder (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - it has nothing to with it being in the UK. It says in WP:NOTNEWS that not all events are suitable for articles. More specific info is at Wikipedia:Notability (events) which says the the same but also: "However, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance." I just don't see how it has had any lasting or historical significance. If you can find some coverage that confirm that is has been of historical significance, I'll be happy to change to keep. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per the reasons given by the nominator. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - don't see what distinguishes this as having "lasting historical significance" to the degree of deserving an article. The argument AL puts forth re: WP:NOTNEWS would only apply if this really did have a considerable social impact, aside from being in the papers for a day or two when there's nothing else to report on. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 12:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete One window getting broken and someone being arrested sounds like a normal day in Brixton. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

::What an unhelpful, judgmental comment AusLondonder (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

: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.