Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010-2011 Worldwide protests

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 delete. It is not up to Wikipedians to judge whether something is particularly remarkable; what we need are reliable sources. So far, the "keep" side has explicitly named only one source by a "Bloomburg journalist" that treats the entity as a whole, and that is not sufficient. For comparison, the Revolutions of 1989 are naturally coherent because of their common, specific theme (abolishing communism), which of course led to widespread coverage on the topic as a whole. The Revolutions of 1848 are not as related as those of 1989, but scores of historians have discussed this as a lump sum that it is worthy of an article. If future historians do the same for this event, of course the article may be recreated. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010-2011 Worldwide protests

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

No reliable source is referring to the protests as "Worldwide protests". Cs32en Talk to me 19:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The protests have reached china, which is part of other continent, thus the protests can be considered worldwide, otherwise geographically how will you include china with other African and middle east countries.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly needed There is no other article to include the protests happening all over the world. The articles Tunisia Effect, 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution, 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests does not justify the content there as the phenomenon have affected big nations like China where population and economic role is much larger than other nations, so there is strong need for this article. The article needs new fresh content, please help it improve.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete content already covered in 2010-11 Arab world and north africa protests. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable, verifiable sources can be found to support. No logical reason at this point to lump all protests together as as single article, since different areas are experiencing different levels of protests and for different reasons. Otherwise, one could lump the demonstrations in Egypt and the (by comparison) violent uprising in Libya together with the demonstrations in Ohio and Wisconsin. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete speculation and original research via WP:SYN. note that the content appears to be duplicative of the intent of the content in Jasmine revolution which is also up for AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Revolution and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–2011 anti-government protests as well!!! Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The edit summary of this article's creation is a straightforward "this is something I stitched together on my own. Tarc (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Jesus Christ, there's an epidemic of creating unnotable or duplication articles right now. This article makes no sense at all. Let's look at the introduction "2010-2011 Worldwide protests are an unprecedented[1] revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests". Umm no, this is certainly not unprecedented. 1989, 1848 anyone? This is just Middle East + China protests, which by the way pretty much nothing happened. 140.180.14.79 (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is kept, there's certainly no need for three articles. Jasmine Revolution, 2010-2011 Worldwide protests, 2010–2011 anti-government protests should merge together (whatever articles survive deletion). 65.93.15.125 (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We can merge Jasmine Revolution and 2010–2011 anti-government protests in this article and be done with the entire problem. Beside, There are protests outside the middle east (Mexico and Greece are major; and we have minor one in China). -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another attempt on having this as an article title that consensus is against. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because these protests aren't worldwide and they're already adequately covered in other articles such as 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reason for this to exist. the Protests are not worldwide.--Smart30 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've moved all the NON Arab countries to this particular article, as the "Arab World" one is getting too big. There's a need for it as a supplement.Ericl (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you do that if currently there is a clear consensus to delete this article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that The Americas are also added these protests have Nothing to do with any of the other protests but are lumped together in this article, as I have pointed out too worldwide protests take place every year just because it is not covered in the media does not mean they do not occur we cant have 2008-2009 Worldwide protests next now can we? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already reverted that Wisconsin junk out for the article. It is a clear example that this article is just a cobbled-together dumping ground for every protest, two-bit or revolutionary, that has happened in the past year. Tarc (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Why this article? We already have the 2010-2011 Arab world protest. All other protest around the world not in the middles east/Iran are not related with each other. If this article is allowed to stay, then we would need a "world protest" page for every year since the beginning of man-kind.Loro-rojo (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is probably not the best way to go about lisitng the current instability sweeping the globe. But I will say that the currently used "Arab World" article needs to be expanded to include Islamic countries outside of "MENA", because in it's current form we are conventionally delimiting the scope of these protests. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment - an astonishing and historically unusual amount of public protest and instability has happened in the first two months of this year. Only time will tell whether it's ultimately proper to speak of this as a revolutionary wave around the world or merely a regional one, but until we find out, we might as well chronicle it as it happens. Wisconsin has a constant Tahrir-square style vigil and signs referencing Egypt, Greece has a general strike, and while it may be too soon to draw parallels, it is also too soon to ignore them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.164.8 (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This is a beautiful and very informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NyuclearTrigger (talk • contribs) 11:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the MENA article. I don't think anyone would equate the tuition fees protests or Wisconsin protests with the MENA revolutions with a straight face. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Stephen Colbert did the other night, saying that protests in North Africa and Wisconsin amounted to worldwide protest. When the exact same premise of an article is used as satire, I think there's a pretty good argument for deletion! Cordless Larry (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and merge Jasmine Revolution and 2010–2011 anti-government protests into it. See for example Protests of 1968 and Revolutions of 1989. Name eventually might have to be change; obviously need more refs. But it is as notable as those two articles, unless you want to delete them too. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And what about 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests? There's only so many articles we can have on this topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMO it's more logical to merge everything into 2010–2011 anti-government protests. The title already exists and it's more functionally accurate, since the protests have yet to truly go worldwide (any protests in Australia or Canada?). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the content is almost entirely related to 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests this should be either deleted or merge into 2010–2011 anti-government protests. There is way too much WP:FORK in this topic area. It certainly doesn't help that the protest have not been worldwide, with Europe, North America, the Caribbeans and Oceania being all but untouched. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV fork of about 10 other existing articles; unsourced neologism that is largely unused. Redundant article. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests#Concurrent related protests. Alinor (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete pov-puishing here. its synthesis to sayu some of these are more than a mere gathering or calls (as most are) the other articles duly covers the starting and mentions of related stuff.Lihaas (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: textbook case of synthesis. Quigley (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2011 (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.