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. I personally find the WP:NOTNEWS argument persuasive, but apparently it was not persuasive enough to sway consensus. I would also like to draw attention to the suggestion to merge brought up by Ohconfucius, as it may be more relevant in the context of the broader topic of Protests against the Iraq War rather than it's own article, and that compromise is likely to prevent the need for future nominations on this subject. Shereth 15:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 19, 2008 anti-war protest[edit]

March 19, 2008 anti-war protest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Doesn't really rise to a notable level. Only brief and local coverage (or first-party), and, as the article admits, a "small" action. No impact on policy, of course. Some anti-war marches are notable - the January 27, 2007 anti-war protest, for example. This one was on a far smaller scale and its article should be deleted. Biruitorul Talk 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not a good reason for deletion in and of itself. Reading like a news article is something that can be fixed by editing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, you don't seem to understand that whatever effect this event had on the people of DC is as you stated it wholly irrelevant. wikipedia articles includability is measured by WP:N and protests fall under WP:EVENT, you should also see WP:NOTNEWS, if your article does get deleted it will definitely have a place at wikinews. arrests don't make for notability, also there is no states verifiable correlation between your protest and the allegations you make about the u.s. congress' voting patterns. wikipedia does not pubish the truth. it publishes the verifiable facts available.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply Your opinions are well stated, nevertheless the protests in D.C. and other cities are profoundly notable. It is very uncommon for the U.S. to be in a war which last 5 years, and a 5-year anniversary war protest is historically significant. I agree congress' voting patterns is speculation and that's why its not in the article. Only history will decide if the protests had a political influence. I have two children and as they grow up they should be able to go to Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia and be able to read about the Iraq war, related politics, and the war protests. Relegating this to "news clips" would be a disservice to future generations. Any encyclopedia which neglects to mention these events would be woefully deficient.Astuteoak (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would appreciate one or more of the editors who believes that this is a "one-time news event" commenting on my suggestion that the article include background not mentioned by news articles. Kalkin (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stretching the article to include background duplicates the existing article, protests against the Iraq War. Any contextual information would be much more appropriately covered in that article instead of broadening the scope of this one well beyond its natural limits. Debate (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Did you see my comment above? I am not proposing that we include general antiwar-protest background information, but background information to this specific protest. I believe that for a number of reasons - because of the role it played in the antiwar movement, because of new features, because of its position on the fifth anniversary of the war - this protest is more notable than your average antiwar protest of equivalent size. Kalkin (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The subject lacks stand alone notability. Perhaps content from this would be better suited as a brief mention in protests against the Iraq War. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bull from the same group of people"? Who's that? "here to make a point"? How so, and how do you know? How about assuming good faith? Kalkin (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously, Assume good faith, and look at these things objectively, no matter what your opinion is on the article's subject matter. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am assuming good faith. I am also assuming that you are aware that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We do not need 3200 pages on every pro-peace and pro-war rally in (or out) of the country, especially when each camp presents what is essentially the same bull at each rally. One or two articles can more than adequately cover the entire movement for peace and for war. All I see here is an attempt to justify having a minor pro-peace rally article when other articles already on here are better built to handle this sort of material. Now, if this rally had presented some new and interesting angle that no one had heard before I might reconsider, but no new angles are presented. So I say delete. Now I will meet you half way and say that if we do delete the article we salvage whatever usable material we can and shove it in to one of the better built anti-war articles here, but my descion to vote delete stands. I do not ask that you like it, but I do ask that you respect it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot reasonably assume you're acting in good faith as long as you continue to refer to the article's topic as "bull", and I'm sure Kalkin will agree. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. I have stated my position on the matter based on my interpretation of the above policy(s), and you have disagreed with my interpretation, as you are free to do. I doubt either of us are hot change our opinions on the matter, and I have things to do elsewhere on the encyclopedia. I will not be returning here again to reply, so let it be. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A SUGGESTION for those so passionate for documenting all the minor protests (or whatever adjective you would prefer "fantastic" "awesome" "major" "noteworthy" "radical" "important") you would have a much easier time and a lot more support if you began a wiki based on that objective at wikia where anyone can create a wiki if they want to around any purpose. how bout that? And if you want an already existing project, try wikinews, this article is not a history topic it is news topic, so at wikinews you can cover that and every other protest you want! But at wikipedia this particular event, can only fill no more than perhaps a sentence at say Protests of the Iraq War the year 2008 or things that have occurred on March 19. You can even copy and paste this article buddy!Myheartinchile (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC) and a compromise? perhaps someone could write, war on terror protests in: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. I think that if you break it down by year you could have a lot more useful historical content, not have an overburdened article for all the protesting (that one one could be clipped down or split into protests in favor and against) and each year article could be broken down by month. I think that would satisfy notability and could be an excellent compromise.Myheartinchile (talk) 06:10, 8 June 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.
Category