Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English Defence League demonstrations

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 keep. L Faraone 02:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Defence League demonstrations

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

This list, in table form was created against consensus. It is a content fork, of sorts, from English Defence League. The original discussion rejecting the creation of a list spin-off can be found here [1]. The list is an incomplete record of street demonstrations by the subject organisation. It lacks neutrality and has no obvious encyclopaedic purpose as a record of miscellaneous individual dated events which, by themselves, are lacking in notability. A case for merging some of the events into the host article might be made, but it is difficult to see why that would add to the completeness of the main article from which this list is forked. Leaky Caldron 11:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to English Defence League. Content is directly related to the subject of the English Defence League article. A list of events would be appropriate to that article, and perhaps should be made into a collapsed table, as not to give it undue weight within the article. English Defence League does not meet WP:LIMIT so no sub-articles are required at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of these are individually notable and the existence of a list does not benefit the article or encyclopedia - this can be summed up as "the EDL has demonstrations, sometimes against Muslim groups, frequent counterprotested by UAF." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO (especially point 3) and WP:DISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia isn't here to list information, regardless of whether or not it's true, when it's not encyclopaedic. – Richard BB 16:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:LISTPURP and WP:CSC#2 and #3 and WP:SPLIT, and there's no reason why it could be considered non-neutral; it's just a list of facts with references to reliable sources for each one. Per WP:DISCRIMINATE, the list has a well-defined inclusion criterion. Given that it's not a list of statistics AND there's "sufficient explanatory text" to put it in their proper context here, WP:IINFO does not apply. Diego (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator ----Snowded ^TALK 23:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator doesn't provide a reason for deletion that is based on policy. The discussion linked by the nominator does not show a consensus to not have the list, it didn't form a consensus at all. Diego (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree ----Snowded ^TALK 09:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy considerations were provided: WP:CONSENSUS. The discussion at the time did not support the creation of a separate list or to retain the full list within the main article. At best the discussion consensus evolved to incorporate a summary within the main article. WP:IINFO - part of the policy of WP:What Wikipedia is not. The current list is indiscriminate, it does not identify any events that were in themselves notable. Being true and verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion. To provide encyclopaedic value material should be put in context. Articles should not be summary-only descriptions. None of the events listed, which are demonstrations involving disturbance to public order, would not in themselves reach a notable level. Leaky Caldron 10:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad that those considerations don't support deletion:

discussion at the time did not support the creation of a separate list- It didn't reject it either by consensus; and WP:BOLD allows creating new content without asking for permission, when there's a lack of consensus against it.
The current list is indiscriminate - Not by any of the definitions in WP:IINFO nor the one in WP:DISCRIMINATE. The list has a clear inclusion criterion ("demonstrations from members of the English Defence League that were covered by reliable sources") so it's not indiscriminate.
the discussion consensus evolved to incorporate a summary within the main article- this doesn't exclude a separate, complete list - see WP:SUMMARY.
Articles should not be summary-only descriptions.- This is not that, it's a valid WP:LIST article.
None of the events listed (...) would not in themselves reach a notable level. That's irrelevant. Criterion WP:CSC#2 for lists allows for collections of non-notable elements of the same type as long as the topic is notable, per WP:LISTN. And the topic is notable since it clearly satisfies the WP:GNG, there is no shortage of reliable sources describing it and its related article, the one which provide all the needed context. This is a valid WP:SPLIT article. Diego (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Diego. The article is well-sourced and pertinent to the parent article, which is itself too big to accomodate the information. Meets all the criteria required by WP policy. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was going to type almost exactly what Diego did. Those delete !votes arguing "indiscriminate" seem to understand "indiscriminate" to mean something like "random", "unusual", "just any old information" rather than the technical definition it has on WP. The article clearly is not indiscriminate in the WP sense - not just because there are clear inclusion criteria as Diego points out, but I would also argue since the number of EDL demonstrations is finite and each individual demonstration is well-documented in reliable sources, a comprehensive, objective and discriminate list is possible. A good way of understanding WP:SPLIT as it applies to this article - if there had been only five demonstrations in the history of the EDL, would a cut-down version of this list have belonged in their article? The answer is clearly "yes". This (a) confirms that the content of this article is encyclopedic (even if the topic title might not seem it at first glance), (b) completely addresses the "individual protests were not notable" argument. Individual protests may not be article-worthy but Diego explained why this does not contradict WP:LIST; moreover this thought experiment confirms that somewhere in Wikipedia there should be overview-level coverage of the history of EDL demonstrations. It doesn't need to be at article-level granularity for each demonstration, but it should be here somewhere, and while the logical place would be in the EDL article WP:SPLIT applies for length reasons. TheGrappler (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They get coverage for each event. Dream Focus 15:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At most weak keep -- EDL is a small right wing neo-fascist type movement. This article might be merged back to the article on them, but that would probably make it overlong. The demos attract modest numbers of people and require a large police presence, partly to prevent confontation with the the left-wing fascists (sorry - revolutionary socialists) and their fellow travellers. The comment for one demo "no arrests" is significantly exceptional. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep - I don't like the EDL, but nor do I like pneumonia, no reason not to include it. The creation of a list, in or out of the root article seems reasonable. The EDL is Notable, and such a list is evidence of that. If it is too long for the article, why should it not be a list article? In my personal view any street politics is as notable as the various music and album based content. I added weak to the vote, because I can see the similarity to things like the list of bus route articles currently being culled: but this case is different, the bus articles would need constant syncing with timetables - once a demo has happened & is cited that's it.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2013 (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.