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 keep. No consensus for merging, although that might become the topic of a separate discussion. Sandstein 15:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Sydney Islamic Riots

[edit]

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

as per WP:NOT#NEWS . Wikipedia doesn't exist to report news as it happens. Yes it's getting a spike of coverage and politicians are saying stuff, but no evidence of this being long standing significant compared to other protests. LibStar (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There is already a page on this matter - see 2012 diplomatic missions attacks Nickm57 (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I see this point has already been made.Nickm57 (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Article directly relates to the 2011 diplomatic missions attack and other interrelated articles, in my opinion, this event is not noteworthy enough to deserve its own separate article. Much of the primary detail of this event is already included in the Innocence of Muslim article in the reaction section. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 08:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A one-day-wonder event, no lasting significance at this time, WP:NOT#NEWS. WWGB (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. Last time there were riots in Sydney it was more than a "one-day-wonder". Wait and see what happens. Amandajm (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something more appropriate. Seems reasonably similar to 2005 Cronulla riots in scale. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is an event that stands on its own two feet, it may seem insignificant to people overseas, but in Australia this event may lead to something bigger as social analysts have already pointed out. If you truly want to delete this, then why don't we delete the Cronulla Riots too? Hmm?--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

may lead to something bigger is WP:CRYSTAL. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep. LibStar (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cronulla Riots were about the same size, but I don't see you arguing for its deletion...--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cronulla riots involved more than one thousand people and resulted in the stabbing of numerous people across Sydney along with blatant and random vandalism of private property over several nights. This riot on the other hand lasted for less than a day and only involved half of the number of people that attended Cronulla. However, I agree that demanding the immediate deletion of this article constitutes Crystal balling hence I changed my vote. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 11:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see what you mean, at peak I think these riots had about 500+ people involved with 150+ riot police. Lets just see what happens over the course of the next few days, if nothing comes of this, then I will support deletion, but if further conflict arises I say we keep it.--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with 2012 diplomatic missions attacks, since the protests were (at some stage) outside the US consulate.--Forward Unto Dawn 12:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2012 diplomatic missions attacks as the event isn't that notable on its own merits. It was triggered by the same event and seen as part of the same protest. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2012 diplomatic missions attacks Mightymights (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2012 diplomatic missions attacks#Australia. The only difference is being labelled as a riot. Skullers (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2012 diplomatic missions attacks#Australia, per reasons noted by Shiftchange. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge into 2012 diplomatic missions attacks, it is the same thing that is happening in Egypt just in another country, the only difference between the two is in Australia muslims are in the minority and thus the riots were less anticipated and more shocking, but it is of the same series of events, same movie, same background, a merge would be fine, but if more happens and more reliable sources could be found the article could possibly stand on its own. Pluto and Beyond (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2012 diplomatic missions attacks#Australia. This riot is no different than the ones that have taken place in other countries (Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon...)VR _talk 18:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. I redirected the page to the main topic, because of its few references. If this article can not supply more information and references, then we should redirect it and merge. It is understandable that this article is separate from the main topic. I would suggest this article to be standing on its own because of the main topic's article size, but since it is small, it would be best to merge this page to 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. JC · Talk · Contributions 22:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or 'Weak Merge' into 2012 diplomatic missions attacks- James xeno (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable event, at least in Australia, akin to Redfern riots and Cronulla riots. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Weak merge if we have to, as suggested above. I just think it will be hard to justify keeping it in 2012 diplomatic missions attacks given it was a protest which resulted in a riot but was never actually an attack on a diplomatic mission. My understanding is that a protest outside the consulate was the original intention but the protesters' progress was halted and the stand-off developed into a riot. I think including it in that article misrepresents what it actually was - a riot - and puts it in the same category as the violence in Tunisia or Libya where diplomatic buildings were attacked. That did not happen in Sydney - there was no burning of buildings or even torching of cars, there were no attacks on individual diplomatic staff (it was a Saturday, by the way, so no-one was there). There is also plenty of conjecture about the cause of the riot and one of the main discussion "threads" in Australian media is whether the attacks elsewhere were an excuse to riot in Sydney. I think tying them together is important but I am inclined to think they should be considered separately. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Users are working on changing the name of 2012 diplomatic missions attacks to something that would include protests too. Currently that article contains info on plenty of protests and riots in Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen etc. These are protests or riots where people were *killed*, even though in the Sydney protests no one was (thankfully). We should have all the protests at the same place.VR _talk 14:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be a good start. My concern is that news coverage of this particular event is moving away from the hour of violence in the middle, toward a child services investigation of particular parents and signs their children were carrying as well as the criminal charges against those involved. Much of the ongoing "coverage" of the event will likely be centred around the details of charges and investigations rather than the protests themselves. As I said, while the original plan was to march on the US Consulate, this didn't actually eventuate and the protest became more of a general expression of anti-US sentiment with the movie in question as one of a number of themes. I'm all for linking them, I just think adding a short scuffle with police to a list of multi-day murderous attacks on diplomats kind of misrepresents what happened in Sydney. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG by miles, so the only relevant question is does it violate NOTNEWS? It has already been subject to commentary far beyond routine coverage, therefore keep. -Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very much passes with WP:GNG. Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment, the issue here is that this article can simply be included in the diplomatic missions attacks article or the reaction section of the Innocence of Muslims article as it's ultimately related to that event and in my opinion doesn't need to be split. It's also akin to the APEC riots in which several officers were injured and more protesters than this riot were arrested(according to reports from yesterday), as you can see that incident can be nicely summarised into a section in the general article. Due to notability issues, commentary on this incident will probably be limited to statements from the Muslim council and government, further comments would probably be repeats of the sentiments from the government. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But YuMaNuMa, the apec was hardly a riot, it was where protestors tried to breach a blockade which led to police arresting some people. What happened in Sydney were most definately a riot, which has damaged Australia in terms of social harmony. Many social commentators have stated that it has set assimilation back half a generation due to this one event.--Collingwood26 (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no one breached the barriers other than the Chaser team, the protest mainly occurred in the town hall and Hyde Park area, neither of which were barricaded in the same manner as the one that The Chasers breached, the only possible barrier you can be referring to are police lines which protesters in this demonstration also breached. Also are you referring to assimilation, the policy that was abandoned almost half a century ago? The one that forced immigrants to conform with Australian culture and disreputed Australia globally due to its racist nature? From what I've read the majority of Muslims disapprove the incident and statements from related religious organizations clearly state that their acts of violence is not a reflection of Muslim beliefs so I honestly have no idea how this incident could set back "assimilation" if such a goal even exist today. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 00:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a big difference between assimilation and integration. Sometimes people say assimilation when they mean integration, and it's good to clarify. Sometimes (unfortunately IMO) people say assimilation and they mean assimilation. --Merbabu (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...for now The media coverage suggests it passes WP:GNG. Perhaps later on, time will be show a stronger argument for its deletion, but the keep argument is stronger for now. -Merbabu (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - This is an event on the order of magnitude of a terrorist attack, such as 9/11. Freedom, and freedom of speech are cornerstone rights to human kind, and from one point of view, a particular religion is declaring war on freedom of speech by dictating under threat of violence what can and cannot be said about their religion. Alternately, a religious group is engaging in world wide protest of the sanctity of their religion and perceived attacks against it. In either case, this is a huge event with world wide implications, and this entry is covering in detail the events in a particular country. This entry could stand on its' own and should be left alone for a period. If it is not left as stand alone, at least it should merged with an entry covering the event world wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufusprime99 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Rufusprime99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I very, very strongly disagree that this event is comparable to the 9/11 attacks. The protests weren't even a terrorist attack (let alone one that killed 3,000 people and changed the course of history).

And no, there is no "particular religion is declaring war on freedom of speech" here. A bunch of people in Sydney (this article is about events in Sydney, not other places) do not constitute "a particular religion".VR _talk 02:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While i on one hand don't support the deletion of the article, I too cannot fathom how this event, whether you mean internationally or just Sydney, can possibly compare to Sept 11. Nor is there any evidence that "a particular religion" is declaring war in either the case of Sydney, or 911. I mean, really?? Come on. The topic an article are notable enough, it doesn't need supporting with such fanciful comparisons. --Merbabu (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is just someone who created an WP:SPA to fire everyone up with a ridiculous comment... But I will say that right up until the outbreak of violence against police, everything up to that point epitomised the "free speech" enjoyed in Australia. Elsewhere they should have been shot at just for holding up the signs they did. The suggestion that exercising free speech is somehow an attack on free speech is ludicrous. The suggestion that it was an attack akin to 9/11 is just moronic. I agree it warrants a standalone article but for reasons polar opposite to those given above - it was far less serious than those elsewhere and that should be acknowledged. Including it in a broader article (in effect, equalising it) raises it to a level which is simply not justified by the event. Stalwart111 (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. We dont have frequent demonstrations at diplomatic missions that attract global news coverage, and it is very rare for attacks on an diplomatic mission. I don't think a deletion discussion is necessary. We want the material somewhere, and the articles about these U.S. diplomatic attacks are all in flux. There are calls across the world for more demonstrations this weekend. Hopefully they dont occur in Australia. The most notable part in Australia is the calls for calm by the Imams. The same happened in France, even after 152 were arrested. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Article is incredibly biased at this point but may eventually be useful in understanding the complexities of this event and subsequent events in Sydney and Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirrmy (talk • contribs) 07:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article can be part of 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. Article appears to be written by haters.
Comment Weird article. What's the point of it? In isolation it doesn't really have much significance (rent-a-mob in a western city which starts peaceful but becomes moderately violent?) Also, are those photos definitely from the event? If I remember correctly 'Behead those who insult Islam' placards made a big (and infamous) appearance in anti-cartoon protests a couple of years ago in the UK... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.155.235 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another such article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Islamist_demonstration_outside_the_Embassy_of_Denmark_in_London and — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaussieeditor (talk • contribs) 12:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unlike many of the other protests, this one garnered a huge amount of media attention and was outright condemned by political leaders for the nature of the protest. The controversy regarding a child at the protest holding a sign calling to behead people who insult Islam grabbed the world's attention. While my vote may be different had this happening in a Middle Eastern country (it may be, it may not be), this is rare for Australia. There is sufficient info here. --Activism1234 04:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Timeshift (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. --Breno ^talk 11:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. Only one source mentions the "Sydney Islamic riots," "AFTER watching the Sydney Islamic riots, the recent CFMEU blockade in Melbourne"[1] The topic of the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks meets WP:GNG, and that information can be covered in the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. There's not enough sources referring to the topic as the "Sydney Islamic riots" to even justify a redirect. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., Apparently, the article now is titled "Sydney anti-Islam film protests". However, only two sources mention "Sydney anti-Islam film protests": Anti-Islam film protests spread to Sydney and Sydney anti-Islam film protests: fallout continues. Again, not even enough for a redirect to the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, absolutely no need for a separate article.--Skashifakram (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very noteworthy in its context within Australia. Clearly meets WP:GNG Nothinglastsforever (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concur that it is very noteworthy in its context within Australia and is being debated within Australian society. Meets WP:GNG KymFarnik (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it may be "noteworthy" this single event is not notable enough to have its own article. It should be mentioned within the broader article about the worldwide protests. A single protest in one city doesn't need to have an encyclopedia article. We aren't here to document the news. It isn't going to have significant ongoing media coverage in the months to come. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy and notable are synonyms.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur that this topic more than satisfies GNG. There may need to be a title change and some NPOVing once this matter has settled down. Alanl (talk)
Keep. Sources clearly demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2012 (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.