Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 May Day 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.

2017 May Day protests

2017 May Day protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (note: article creator): Can we please stop nominating obviously notable topics for deletion? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the yearly articles into May Day protests in the Pacific Northwest or something similar. It happens every year, with varying degrees of notability, and warrants inclusion as a series of events rather than a single instance each time. SounderBruce 22:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @SounderBruce: Except this article will not be about the Pacific Northwest specifically, once expanded. 2017 protests took place throughout the United States and around the world. An expanded article would look more like Not My Presidents Day or March for Science, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous May Day articles only seem to focus on the Pacific Northwest. The only violent incidents reported nationally were from Olympia and Portland. I don't think run-of-the-mill peaceful demonstrations can be considered notable when they happen literally every weekend. SounderBruce 22:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, riots in Olympia are not commonplace. Especially considering it was a political riot in the Washington state capital, this is actually an historic event. - Bri (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @SounderBruce: Hmm, ok. I disagree, and I'd hope this article would also mention the thousands who protested in Chicago and San Francisco, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - (edit conflict) Once again a vexatious, knee-jerk delete nomination to go along with progressive-related Northwest and national themes immediately nominated for deletion like WP:Articles for deletion/Marissa Johnson, WP:Articles for deletion/Women's March on Seattle, and WP:Articles for deletion/Scientists' March on Washington. Agree with AB's comment above, this should stop. - Bri (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vexatious" and "knee-jerk"? NOTNEWS is clear. Also unlikely to evidence any
    WP:LASTING impact. Age of the article doesn't matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I stand by those characterizations. - Bri (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should learn to
        WP:AGF. I created March for Science. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • With respect to your article creation history 1) nominating an article barely 6 hours old counts as "knee jerk" in my book and 2) repeated nominations of this sort as a whole constitute vexatious under the Wikipedia definition "repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions". If the examples I gave were not meritless the articles would not now stand. I do AGF, but when facts and circumstances shout at me, then assumptions are no longer assumptions. Clearly the enduring notability of this event was not considered when arguments made on this page contravene facts, such as labeling this as a routine peaceful demonstration.

Other recent noms I'd consider vexatious, with similar reasoning include

WP:NOTNEWS for WP:Articles for deletion/2017 block of Wikipedia in Turkey and essentially same appeal of non-SUSTAINED coverage in WP:Articles for deletion/Wikitribune. We just waste a lot of time on this stuff. The community should take it easy on the NOTNEWS noms. That's all I'm saying. - Bri (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment: Since editors weren't given sufficient time to expand this article, much like many of the other articles recently with even the slightest anti-Trump sentiment, I now feel forced to add a list of cities with protests just to rescue this article from AfD. Hopefully I'll have time to convert this list to prose later. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• There do seem to be
  talk) 23:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And/or perhaps May Day Protests should be converted from a disambiguation page into a parent article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not going to take a side here, but I do see a double standard. For example, articles relating to protests in India, the largest democracy in the world, are routinely deleted. I have created articles about protests in the UK. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 London general election protest and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Reclaim Brixton protest. Both were unanimously deleted with large participation. AusLondonder (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I may be wrong, but at first glance I'd assume the two protests you mention each took place in one city? There were May Day protests this week all around the world. I'm not proposing we keep articles about May Day protests for each city; I'm proposing we keep one article about all the May Day protests around the world in 2017. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added two paragraphs to the May 1 strike section of the Protests against Donald Trump article yesterday, and started a discussion on the talk page about creating a full article. I was somewhat surprised and a bit disappointed that you started this new article without chiming in on that, Another Believer, but as long as you already have, you can go ahead and incorporate my text from that article into this one. I'd rather not expend the effort myself in case this article ends up getting deleted. FWIW, I'm also about to upload to Commons 70+ photos from the May Day demonstrations in San Francisco. Funcrunch (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Funcrunch: Re: "I was somewhat surprised and a bit disappointed that you started this new article without chiming in on that, Another Believer". I'm sorry, I did not see this talk page discussion and the "Protests against Donald Trump" article is not on my watchlist. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Images now uploaded. Funcrunch (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep To me, the fact that these happen every year is more reason to keep this article because it's a large event with a lot of international media attention and lasting effects. Not to mention the fact that this took place in multiple different cities and is a part of an ongoing
  talk) 02:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Indeed, "There are May Day protests every year", just as there is a World Series, Oscars and a host of other annual events. What makes it notable is the worldwide breadth and scope of sources about the protests that day. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.
  talk) 03:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - This is a factual, well-referenced article which given time may be expanded. The Category "May Day protests" includes over a dozen articles, and this should be kept as per Alansohn. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Article describes a noteworthy event, which was the May Day protests of 2017. It most certainly was a widespread event, triggering protests worldwide and some riots. "There are May Day protests every year," but there are superbowls, world series and NBA playoffs every year. We have separate articles about all of that. We even have articles about years in general. The year 2016 has an article. Under your logic, why does it exist? Years happen all the time. Yet we have articles for thousands of different years in history, some of which were very uneventful. Either keep this article, or merge it into a larger May Day article, but deleting it is a mistake. Lilahdog568 (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The have been May Day protests every year since it became a politically charged annual occurrence. A few of them were particularly significant, for various reasons. There is no reason to think this is, except that it's the one people here are most recently aware of, and are in a particular extremely popular cause--to avoid misunderstanding, in my opinion popular for good reason. They might become been notable if they should turn out to lead to something historic, like a presidential renomination. Otherwise, the votes here are basically ISUPPORTIT. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @DGG: I respect your opinion and want to understand your position better. Do you think the Olympia, Portland riots are currently significant? Should we keep other recurring events where nothing out of the ordinary occurred? Like, say, an annual beauty contest? Seems like your answer to both has to be "no" for consistency, or else I misunderstand you. - Bri (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say "currently significant". If so, that's a direct violation of NOT NEWS. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. " This is an encyclopedia , and we need permanent significance.

Is the articles about riots concerning Trump? If so, most of the outside US riots do not belong--according to CNN, the ones outside the US were on unrelated causes. Or is the article about 2017 May Day events in general--if so, it does not belong under the series. Your argument about May Day being notable each year individually would implies that this does not belong under Trump. It also means we should have separate articles for each 4th of July since 1777. Not to mention each individual Guy Fawkes Night, Christmas Day, Easter Sunday, etc. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is that the deletion debate for any "current event" becomes a kind of

Mount Pleasant riot merit an article in the days after it occurred (it also involved crowds blocking streets and men in bandannas smashing stores)? I don't know. So we leave ourselves open to I like it/I don't like it arguments. To me there's a high likelihood of enduring significance -- I know the region pretty well, and like I said before, political riots are uncommon. Kind of like Black Panthers on the capitol steps [1] is notable enough to be included in a serious history book. - Bri (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per Another Believer. It seems like a reflex for each of these protest articles to go to AfD. The only way we are going to be able to deal with these repeated, individualized, massive number of protests is through sidebar articles like this. Trackinfo (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an attempt to use Wikipedia for publicity and/or original research. Most of the sources are news articles about annual occurrences. If no individual protest was notable, gathering a list of twenty of them should not make it notable.
  talk) 19:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Meets
  WP:GNG. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2017 (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.