Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 London riots

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 August 9.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 keep – Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Procedural_closure Linked from Main Page. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 London riots

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

Is Wikipedia a newspaper? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but keep. We have the old London riots at 1985 Brixton riot and I'd say this is at least as notable if not more. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 00:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major riots are encyclopedic as is major plane crashes. It is bad taste to nominate a "current event" for deletion when it is clearly maturing. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 00:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Obvious keep, hundreds of sources about this, largest riots in the capital in years and years. — Joseph Fox 00:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because my socks don't match. 2.27.5.50 (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are sources galore --Guerillero | My Talk 01:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now the 'speedy closing' admin (who was an involved editor) has said I can 'undo' and bring this back to life, can I have my say? This is NOT a speedy delete candidate - please no one else stifle debate. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did they say that? —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've never seen a faster speedy delete - twice over. It was said on the article's talk page (under my Afd heading). Matt Lewis (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, apparently the rioting is spreading to Liverpool now (it has already spread to Birmingham). There is debate around (almost guaranteed not to be covered on this article, as generally media sites don't delve into it) on whether perhaps the media is stoking the fires. Now, the media is at least professional - Wikipedia is not. I have deep concerns in Wikipedia being a breaking news site, as its search engine placement means people get the unprofessional recycled news before the real thing. This is far removed from the Wikipedia I signed up for (after enough misgivings) in 2006. Who is calling this the '2011 London riots'? Whatever happens, currently Wikipedia is. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keepwikipedia has a long standing practice of covering significant events close to the time they happen and AFD cannot and should not change that. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Tottenham riots.©Geni 01:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep I don't think this really needs an explanation but, major news story with international coverage and the most serious riots in the UK for at least 25 years (we don't have many.) There are more than likely other reasons but I shall leave it there as I think I have made my point. Personally I can’t see why this discussion was reopened. --wintonian ^talk 01:11, 9 August 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.