Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Wikipedia blackout

2012 Wikipedia blackout

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

WP:NOTNEWS. It hasn't even happened yet. →Σ τ c. 03:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this on the basis that someone was going to, so it might as well start off with good habits (sources). For what it's worth, I wouldn't object to this being moved, and its scope expanded to incorporate all of the action taking place on the 18th. As for the it hasn't even happened yet part, the decision has already been made, and the decision alone has attracted significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. —WFC— 03:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than my specific comment on a merge, I don't wish to badger any individual rationale. What I will note is that WP:NOTNEWS is depreciated, as a result of having been understood by some to mean "all news must be deleted". I consider the thinking behind that decision to be relevant here. —WFC— 06:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the "not news" invocation. Should we have an article on every single strike, boycott, or other act of protest? What we need are articles on greater issues of contention, with reports on individual events reported in their proper places of importance. -BigJim707 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vain as it seems for Wikipedia to create an article about a protest of its own, this has received ample coverage in the mainstream media. Coupled along with the fact that Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world, this "event" is certainly notable. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 04:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I said ample news coverage, I meant thousands of news articles, not your typical weather update. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 04:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—We do not need an article on every single thing that gets a news article or two. If the blackout ends up being earth-shattering, it might warrant an article. Until then, it's simply not a notable event. Merge this with all other coverage of protests in the main Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act articles. hare j 04:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my objection to a merge in this specific instance is the danger of skewing those articles, particularly given that they are likely to remain visible tomorrow. Let's say for argument's sake you're right and I have misjudged the notability, far better for any fluff to gather here and to delete or upmerge at a later date. —WFC— 04:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no bar on recreation if lasting significance can be shown. For the avoidance of any doubt there is no indication that this blackout will in and of it's self be of any lasting significance even if the bill is does not become law. Mt king^(edits) 04:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, article passes WP:GNG, WP:EVENT. Gsingh (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTNEWS looks to exclude "routine" news events. The coverage this event is generating is clearly not routine -- indeed, the fact that, as the nom correctly states, it hasn't yet happened and is nonetheless getting massive coverage tends to suggest that this is not the type of routine news item that WP:NOTNEWS excludes. The intentional 24 hour shutdown of a website with ~25 million daily visitors is not equivalent to "every single strike, boycott, or other act of protest." Indeed -- and I don't think this is me going all WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS -- we have quite a few articles on notable protest actions. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a watershed event in the history of Wikipedia. Dough 48 72 05:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AFD won't close until after the blackout. --Rs chen 7754 05:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice against a future merger. Let's see how this storyline develops in the media, but with the level of attention that it has already generated before the blackout, the topic easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Imzadi 1979 → 05:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "It hasn't happened yet" is an invalid reason to delete. — Moe ε 06:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:NOTNEWS is. →Σ τ c. 06:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not your reason for nominating it. — Moe ε 06:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. WP:NOTNEWS. It hasn't even happened yet. →Σ τ c. 07:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, the first thing he says in the nomination is WP:NOTNEWS :D. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the point, but okay. At any rate, it passes WP:GNG. — Moe ε 07:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Just read up... Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 06:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS and navel gazing at its best. It should not have its own article yet.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dislike navel gazing, but I have to agree with others here. This event seems to have significant coverage in reliable sources, more than routine coverage, and widespread enough to meet the general notability guideline. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 06:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: It's aready being reported worldwide (although not currently by the BBC ). Deletion now only to re-create the article after the event is beaurocracy for the sake of beaurocracy. As the first action of it's kind ever taken by us, the Wikipedia community, it will be a significant historic event which already easily passes WP:GNG. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL there.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The event is "notable and is almost certain to take place." WP:CRYSTAL slots in nicely when discussing, say, a planned U2 world tour in early 2013 (making that up), but this is a confirmed event scheduled for tomorrow. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ
    bomb 07:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm going off of the "extrapolation, speculation" part. Mjroots is saying it will be a notable event before it even happens.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was brought up in IRC, and was discussed by a few users who were unaware of this discussion. The closing admin should take into account the possible occurrence of canvassing. →Σ τ c. 07:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this AfD was brought up in IRC by Σ. —WFC— 07:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having been there on IRC, and knowing what Wikipedia:Canvassing is (i.e, from the nutshell: "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions"), it is not canvassing. Providing a link to a discussion is not canvassing. — Moe ε 07:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge One line in the 2012 section of our history will suffice, as well as a line in the SOPA article. There are plenty of good independent sources, but there's not much to say other than that we're planning to protest some legislation. Steven Walling • talk 07:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - Deletion of this truly has a snowball's chance... NOTNEWS today, fully sourced before this AfD closes, we'll decide what it actually looks like a year or two from now when the dust clears. Inevitable that this article would be prematurely created, inevitable that it would be hauled to AfD, inevitable that it will be kept... Carrite (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Rename. mechamind 9 0 07:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]