Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Sunday (1969)

Add links
Source: 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 Speedy-k per SNOW. Great job improving the article everyone.

Bloody Sunday (1969)

Bloody Sunday (1969) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete this unsourced one-liner about a clash does not demonstrate notability of such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big delete I think it just fails the CSD for little or no context. It is unclear and you don't really learn anything from it.

Your Hancock Please 15:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete For sure. True lack of content. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking over news articles, there was a protest in Istanbul on February 16, 1969, over a week-long visit by the U.S. Sixth Fleet; two persons were killed and 150 were injured. As far as events go, it didn't rate a mention in TIME Magazine (www.time.com). It was a clash "between the right and the left", and February 16 was on a Sunday, and there was bloodshed. It's not the type of thing that lends itself to an anniversary observance. Nothing notableMandsford (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just edited the article a little bit based on some google searching. I know nothing about the event, but perhaps that information could be merged into an article about Taksim Square or another mor e relevant page, if it isn't worth its own article? --99.250.67.100 (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep the event is notable. It probably will be hard to find english language web sources for something that happened in turkey 30 years ago. I've included it in the disambiguation page for bloody sunday, added some project tags and I'm going to tack a few sources on there. Please don't delete. Protonk (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't mean to be rude, and if you feel I'm not being civil, then let me know on the talk page, I might strike this comment, but I think something is unclear. An article being poorly worded is not grounds for deletion. An article not showing up on a cursory google search is not grounds for deletion. While it is the author's responsibility to show notability, the rest of us should at least check google scholar/books before deep sixing this article. It took me <30 minutes and I've got 2 journal articles and one book that mention the event. Please, please, help clean prose up (as the original author probably doesn't speak english as a first language) and do some checking for sources before you say things like Big Delete. Protonk (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MAN, I was heated. Lots of nerd rage. Turns out the article seen by the first few delete votes was literally one line, no sources and no clear idea of what was happening. The article was STILL terrible when I saw it (apologies to 99.250.67.100 who did an awesome job fixing it up but it still had a long way to go), so I assumed that they saw the same article I did. Sorry guys (and/or gals). Protonk (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG keep This article is totally revamped now. 6 independent sources, each published or otherwise peer reviewed. Wikified. Added to appropriate projects and categories. Linked to and from the appropriate disambiguation pages and wiki pages. The prose has been reworked (but still needs work from someone who is better at that than me). Only one [citation needed] tag left. It is a whole new beast. Protonk (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources added by Protonk appear to establish notability. Klausness (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Protonk. The improved article still needs a POV check but it was a notable event. Google searches indicate continued academic/historical interest. • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, given improvement and sourcing. --
    Talk 12:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per
    WP:HEY by author. It probably does still need cleanup but its notability is now clear. --Dhartung | Talk 12:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, well-sourced stub of a notable event TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hiya. I was to 99.250.67.100, now on my registered account. Just thought I'd put my own 2 cents in, now that the article's been improved (and thanks to others properly worded and sourced), it's definitely a keeper. --Dustinmacdonald (talk) 21:44, 25 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bloody_Sunday_(1969)&oldid=1137631753"