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 no consensus for deletion, default to keep.  Sandstein  19:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of riots and civil unrest in Calgary, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Seems to be an inherently arbitrary collection of historical fragments that have little connection to each other, except they happened in Calgary. A timeline of unrest would make sense, if you pick a place/time-period where there's a sequence of related events. Rob (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the creator of the article. There is clearly a thematic trend that is made obvious by the events included and the location in which they occurred. The theme: riots and civil unrest. The place: Calgary. The time period: The existence of the city (if only Calgarians would have risen in unrest more recently!) The premise for this AfD makes little sense to me; could you please explain it differently Rob? • Freechild'sup? 05:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you include only "threat to government's ability to govern", it would be about one item. If you include all "unrest", this list could be endless; for instance the initial anti-Iraq protests, or the WPC 2000, or various others. You've got a peaceful event with 40 people in the list. Events with 40+ people happen all the time, anywhere. Being in the same place doesn't connect things. I understand something like Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since each event sets the stage for the next one. The "unrest" events in Calgary are largely independent of one another. I would be fine with breaking off a History of Calgary from Calgary, and including some stuff from this list. It seems this list was made to justify the soapbox statement "Many of the events portray widespread public sentiment about racism, classism and other forms of discrimination". --Rob (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you will refrain from personal attacks and redact your statement above about my "soapbox statement." I have not challenged the veracity of your intent with this AfD; I expect that you will be civil and not challenge mine. I added the citation that I'd originally intended to include to support the "soapbox statement" you took issue with; I merely forgot to originally. I hope that that will satisfy your demeaning approach to attracting attention to your issue(s) with this article. Additionally, there is no information on the "history of Calgary" in the Calgary article to speak of. • Freechild'sup? 06:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A personal attack is when somebody attacks the writer not the content. I attacked the content. It's up to you to not take criticisms of content personally. You cite an obscure marginal source, "Clue! Magazine", which at best is a source of opinion, not fact. If you use their opinion, you must show a full range of others. But you put their claim in the body in the body of the article, as though it were an objective fact. If we do show opinion, then we must show a full range of opinion, without pretending minority views are majority views, per WP:NPOV (let alone fact). Calgary is a major city, with coverage in major publications like the NY Times or the Economist, so why are we scouring the depths of obscurity to find a particular POV? --Rob (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Rob (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Calgary isn't a city with a wide history of civil unrest, and I look at this list and I see several NN examples of strikes (not riots, not violence, just strikes), and there's a 70-year gap between two events. The Aryan Nations thing earlier this year was a non-starter and to be honest is pennyweight compared to the level of gang violence in this city. Where are all the hockey riots? The 2002 G8 protests? The criteria is too fast and loose and too many examples that do not fulfil the mandate set by the title to make this viable. To be specific, the only two events listed that in any way fit this list are the Chinese smallpox and anti-German riot; they can be covered in a paragraph in the main article. 23skidoo (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note The attribution of each item in this article demonstrates notability through reliable sources that are verifiable. Let's stick to the facts. Regarding the breadth of events included here, the criterion is not whether they were violent; it is whether they constituted civil unrest. As for your judgment of the Aryan Nations "thing", see the first line of this note. As for missing entries, add them. • Freechild'sup? 13:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep & Rename to "List of riots and civil unrest in Calgary" - this title wouldn't imply that it has been one long stream of civil unrest. As a collection of well-sourced facts it is useful for notable civic history. I think it is the timeline aspect which annoys most editors here, so just make it a list. --Padraic 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a merge per Bearcat. --Padraic 15:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A Canada-wide timeline of riots and civil unrest might make sense. Individual cities, however, simply don't need their own separate lists — there's nothing uniquely encyclopedic about the history of civil disobedience in Calgary that would merit a separate standalone article. Delete or merge into a Canada-wide list. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply What is unique about these events is that they all occurred in Calgary. A Canada-wide list will be too long of a list, with Vancouver alone accounting for at least 60 different events. In developing this article I did not know about the hockey-related riots in Calgary; adding that/ose to the list will expand it further, and as other events are identified they can be added by other editors. The point is that the topic of this article is clearly notable and has been cited in depth; to take this article down would undermine the validity of many WP guidelines and rules, including WP:RS and WP:N, and reinforce the nastiness of WP:UGH. Besides, you can't merge an article to one that doesn't exist. • Freechild'sup? 04:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The question is why the fact that all of these events occurred in Calgary is, in and of itself, significant enough to merit a distinct article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; to justify this list there needs to be an actual reason why it would be encyclopedically significant that these events took place specifically in Calgary. There needs to be a reason, beyond pure geography, to view riots in Calgary and riots in Saskatoon or Montreal or Fredericton as distinctly encyclopedic sets of phenomena. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note For those who suggest that Calgary isn't worthy of this article, please read the guideline entitled WP:ALLORNOTHING. • Freechild'sup? 04:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's ok for a category to be a mishmash of items, loosely related and incomplete. An article should not be such an arbitrary collection. Consistent with WP:ALLORNOTHING's intent: while I support deletion of this "List of riot"-type article, I don't support deletion of all others, and would welcome new ones, under the appropriate circumstances. For instance, one on Jerusalem would be quite interesting to me; as riots and civil unrest there are interconnected, with one event leading to or effecting a subsequent one, and constantly being re-reference over time. The events in Calgary, though, are largely isolated events, barely remembered, and little known outside of Calgary. --Rob (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply The Wikipedia rule about notability says nothing about an individual editor's memory, nor the collective memory of a city; rather, it requires reliable sources and notability. The citations I have added include a primary source and two secondary sources, per WP:PSTS. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." There are numerous exceptional sources included; please review them for further information. • Freechild'sup? 05:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You still haven't supported the soapbox statement "A variety of events throughout the history of Calgary portray widespread public sentiment towards and government acknowledgment of racism, classism and other forms of discrimination.". You have sources to show individual events happened. But you don't have sources to join them to together, and interpret their collective meaning. --Rob (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my laboring to answer your lack of desire to reach consensus you still are not contented; yet I firmly believe I have answered your criticism. Continuous hostility and the absence of good faith does little to further the development of WP. Will you join me in mediation so we can settle our differences with the assistance of a third party? I will accept their judgment; however, there is nothing further I can do to rectify your insatiability. Note to other editors Thivierr/Rob has been carrying on an aggressive campaign against the sources in the article to disprove their reliability, particularly in regard to one statement s/he has interpreted differently than me. For more information see the talk page. • Freechild'sup? 06:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are actually reliable for what they actually say. The problem is, in one case, you falsely say they say something they don't. If you made a claim consistent with the source, there wouldn't have been a dispute. It seems the whole purpose of this article, is you wanted to put forward a certain soap box point of view. If you keep those sources, then we'll have to edit to text to actually reflect what the sources say (ideally through quotation), and of course, give proper attribution. But, first, let's see if the article is kept as a stand-alone article. --Rob (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just a note "ALLORNOTHING" is not a guideline it is a personal essay.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a perfectly good list, well-sourced and easy to read. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Ditto Keep - Bearian got it right!--Mike Cline (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge - While there are sources for the individual events, I don't see a source that shows that this topic is in anyway notable. In addition, per Bearcat - "there's nothing uniquely encyclopedic about the history of civil disobedience in Calgary that would merit a separate standalone article." - DigitalC (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to List of riots and civil unrest in Calgary, Alberta. The word "timeline" implies a relationship between the events beyond just happening in Calgary. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as per Whpq and others. "Timeline" implies an interconnected series of events, which is misleading. justinfr (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note regarding "timeline" versus "list": This is probably best called a chronology, or chronicle. However, I chose timeline because of the popular usage of the term throughout WP, particularly for the sequencing of events according to their dates. This is not a mere list, as all of the events are portrayed in a linear fashion. If you look at the List of riots you will see how the format in this article is appropriately named a timeline versus a list. • Freechild'sup? 23:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Add'l note: If we're on a witch hunt for articles that qualify as "arbitrary collection(s) of historical fragments" then go after Timeline of riots and civil unrest in Omaha, Nebraska as well; I will make the Calgary article look like that by the time I'm finished. I am afraid this AfD is taking the form of systemic bias. as heralded by a frequent contributor to Calgary-focused articles and doesn't want to see their city slandered by its own ugly (and suppressed) history. The truth must be known! *smile, wink* • Freechild'sup? 23:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You may want to read WP:AGF before you comment any further on the nominator.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. The word systemic means nothing about individuals, per se, but rather their actions within a larger whole. Whether the nominating author or the above IP took it personally is inconsequential to the argument; the simple point of the matter is I am beginning to identify a repeated pattern of editors attacking articles representing points of diversity in Western North American cities, which in this case includes Calgary, such as the AfD here. What needs to be established and reiterated here is that WP relies on verifiability, Notability and reliable sources; the question of whether or not an article needs to exist is largely settled when those issues are addressed. Note to Thivierr: I struck my commentary above regarding what I believe your intentions to be; however, I sourced it from here. • Freechild'sup? 04:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you saying about where you "sourced" it? You linked to a comment on my talk page, by another editor, who mistakenly thought I made this article, and wanted an explanation. What's your point? Anyways, when you see a pattern of AFDs, it's probably because, like most of us, you have a pattern of article creation. We are all more likely to notice nominations of articles we personally made or substanntially edited. Also, I suggest, that in general, POV forks are generally more likely to be AFD'd or merged, regardless of what point of view they advance. Had you made a History of Calgary with an included timeline, showing riots, unrest, and other major events, I doubt there would have been an AFD. Instead of making an article for each point of view on topic, its best to cover all major points of view in a common article. If you want to see other point of views treated the same way, make Timeline of charitable events in Calgary, and watch it get AFD'd or merged just as quickly. --Rob (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see nothing significant about these events in Calgary's history. Unless some of these events start becoming so notable they warrant their own pages there is no reason to create some arbitrary list. As for Bearian's argumet WP:ILIKEIT isn't much of an argument and isn't a terribly compelling reason to keep it. The author has failed to show why civil unrest in Calgary is such a notable topic.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Proof of the point-of-view agenda is shown in the expanding lead. It states as fact, not just opinion that "Recent events have seen the City of Calgary grow less tolerant of civil unrest and protest...". Now, if this opinionated statement were added to the Calgary article, numerous editors would insist it bee attributed properly (in the body), and opposing viewpoints shown. But, as a POV fork, which few people monitor, it's dominated by a single owner editor, who cherry-picks opinions, which he misrepresents as objective facts. It would be nice if some of those supporting keeping this article, would contribute to the overal neutrality of the article, particularly the lead. --Rob (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: If it is a simple matter of attribution, I have included the author's name in the text of the article in order to appease your concern. However, your continuing pattern of personal attacks demonstrate an intolerance for the topic and the editor of the article, rather than the substance of the article. I am not on trial here; please stay focused on the article. If you must continue attacking me and my editing, keep it to my talk page as you have in the past. Thank you. • Freechild'sup? 17:08, 13 July 2008 (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.