Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Syrian protests

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Syrian protests

[edit]
2011 Syrian protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a day of rage that didn't happen. Not notable, content could easily be included in the redirect 2010-2011 Arab World protests. Wikipedia is not a news bulletin. Yazan (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting too long to be included in the main article. 69.31.50.227 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTNEWS, this is not a notable event in any way. It shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. Yazan (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The entire latest events are 'news' and the Syrian subsection in the main article is getting way too long and it should be separated. The noteworthiness of an article is not an evaluation for deletion. 69.31.50.227 (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A demonstration of 2000 people that was never mentioned in any RS, and was never related to the events, would never pass notability. Soryoon, Free-Syria, couldn't possibly be RS. Yazan (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source I brought is Alquds. There is also Al Arabiya [4] and LA Times and NYT blogs:[5][6] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't think it meets notability at the moment. When it does, and gets sufficient coverage I'd be more than happy to help with the article. But this is ridiculous as it stands now. A demonstration of 1500 people, and a video of anti-government Graffiti, is not noteworthy, I'm sorry Yazan (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this notable for you? St. Joseph Parish, Claremont? 69.31.50.227 (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth is it not related? 69.31.50.227 (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not how it works. Rather, when it becomes notable, it would be included. Right now it is nothing but speculation, and minor events that are embarrassing to put in an Encyclopedia. Yazan (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are Syrian, so I see a clear Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Please recuse yourself from this discussion. {Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 15:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not state that you should not discuss anything related to your country; that would be absurd indeed, and the encyclopaedia would be worse off. Rather, you should not RfD articles that your COI prevents you from seeing objectively. I practice what I'm preaching here: I do not RfD articles or participate in deletion discussions when I have a bias. The discussion above smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. {Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 16:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you've judged that I have a bias, and I can't see objectively because of my nationality. There is no COI, my arguments are all within Wikipedia's guidelines. This article does not WP:NOTABILITY, very simple. When it does and if it does, I will gladly be writing in there. Right now it doesn't. Yazan (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, not only you are Syrian, but also an Alawite and that is a major conflict of interests. 69.31.50.183 (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) First of all, there is nothing on my page that says I'm Alawite. It actually says I'm an athiest. Second of all, instead of focusing on what sect/religion/nationality I am, try to discuss the article. Is that too much to ask for on Wikipedia? Yazan (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before we go off further on this tangent, "Conflict of interest" is usually confined to those cases where a person is directly connected to the subject under discussion, such as Miley Cyrus arguing over an article about Billy Ray Cyrus. To User:Heroeswithoutmetaphors, you can point out that you think that someone may have a bias, but what you're implying is that you can see things objectively, and that Yazan and other natives of Syria lack that ability. That may not be what you meant, but it's sounding like it. Please do not tell ask people to recuse themselves from a discussion. Mandsford 16:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep the article needs an update not a deletion. content is on the umbrella page.Lihaas (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of "Free-Syria" sources there, not reliable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8 out of 31 to be exact - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Jesus Christ, we really need to stop creating an article for every random protest. First, the "Day of Rage" didn't even materialize. It'll be different if 50,000 people took to the streets of Damascus, killing ten. Second, all these protests are completely unrelated and insignificant.

Let's take a look at all the so-called protests (like actual protests, not interviews with the president):

Jan 26 - some guy burns himself (clear relation to the Tunisian Revolution).
Jan 29 - a "demonstration" held in Ar-Raqqah. The source is in Arabic, I can't find any English source. Even if the demonstration is even remotely large, it was "in protest against the killing of two soldiers of Kurdish descent" (AKA nothing to do with the Jan 26 incident at all).
Feb 5 - "hundreds" gathered in Al-Hasakah, which likely is related to the Jan 26 incident.
Feb 17 - 1,500 protestors, triggered by fight in Damascus. No connection with Jan 26 incident nor Jan 29 incident.

As we can see, most of the incidents are all separate, with no more than 1,500 protestors at most and lead pretty much nowhere. The thing is this: Syria will always has minor "protests". Are we really going to report all of them? Also, how are we determining the start and end date of this protest. If Syria's regime doesn't fall and 5 guys get into fights with the police every month, this article can go forever. I guess with all the media attention shone on the Middle East these days, even 3 people waving Anti-Government signs = protest. Can we stop the overreaction? 140.180.14.79 (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect suggestions fail WP:SPLIT#Article_size which says > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided. The present version of the main article [7] is 125k, and the Syrian section stands out as being one of the longest individual sections. What needs to be done is for a proper WP:LEAD to be written for this article (based on the NPOV+RS'd content) and then copied to the main article (with appropriate obvious non-controversial changes for within-article context), which would reduce that article's length, bringing it closer to a reasonable size. But people are unlikely to invest time writing a proper lead here while the article is under threat of deletion. Boud (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the Syria section in the original article is less than notable anyway, and should be cut. That the Syria section is too long there is not a good excuse to ignore WP:NOTE. Yazan (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect From the information in the article, these protests clearly appear to be relatively minor, few, and isolated. With this in addition to having very little coverage, I don't believe we should have an article on the protests. At the same time its almost obvious they are a part of the wider ongoing unrest in the region. Therefore, I think the appropriate thing to do is maintain the info in the 2010-2011 Middle East protests article. If the section is too big there, it is unnecessarily and should be cleaned up. Ways for us to do that could be discussed on that article's talk page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clear case of WP:BLUDGEON by nominator. Notability is established, despite instruction bulldozing such as "Arabic sourced material is disputable because the sources would never qualify as WP:RS" I have tolerated WP US-centrism for quite a while, but that's way over the line. Can you say, Google Translator ? Sure you can.
Obviously the article is badly written, but that is no reason for deletion. And there are 17 other voters here. Like myself, they may all be too busy, but 17? I think it more likely that some of the Keepers are not working on the article in case it gets deleted and their work is wasted, and some of the Deletors are not working on it for the same reason, or because they tend to not write anything other than delete votes. Anarchangel (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't say that Arabic sources are not RS, I said the ones used are not RS. Elaph, is an Arabic tabloid. Soryoon is a sectarian agenda-driven website. Free-Syria which is quoted all over the place doesn't mind publishing news like "Assad sends troops to help Ghaddafi" [8], take that to any real newspaper and see if they'd publish it. They are not RS, and I know that specifically because I can read Arabic.
There are more than 200 Japanese salarymen demonstrating in the park next me since last night, I'm sure there will coverage of them in media, shall we create an article about 2011 Japanese protests.
I stick to my point, it is not notable, once it is people will write about and it will be covered in several RS not dubious sites like the ones they're using now. People are not writing because there's nothing to add, or write, not because it's gonna be deleted. Yazan (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People taking part in any activity that may be viewed as in opposition to the Syrian Government are at real risk - and so are their families [1]. These demonstrators come with great courage which must surely identify their actions as notable. This page should stand by itself sheila mosley (talk) 16:22, 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.
  1. ^ http://supportkurds.org
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2011_Syrian_protests&oldid=1069006220"