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 main article, merge the others. Clear consensus that the protests as a whole are notable, but there is consensusal articles that the additional articles are unnecessary - I'll enact this by redirecting the articles, but the material will be available in the history for merging Fritzpoll (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Tamil protests[edit]

2009 Tamil protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Group of articles nominated for deletion on the grounds of notability. Essentially cover a series of protests held over a brief period of time. From what I can gather, none of them have had no medium or long term impact, and generally very little short term impact besides what is normally expected from a protest. Sourcing is predominately from organisations with a vested interest in the protests. Wikipedia is not a news source, nor is it a location to detail every single non notable protest associated with a particular issue. While thcoordination of the Tamil communities across many countries is commendable, the protests are not collectively recognised as being important on an international basis. These articles should be deleted and merged into Sri Lankan Civil War, or at the very least merged into one main article Guycalledryan (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on the grounds of notability:

• 2009 Tamil protests in Australia
• 2009 Tamil protests in Canada
• 2009 Tamil protests in India
• 2009 Tamil protests in Norway
• 2009 Tamil protests in the United Kingdom

• Strong Keep, refer to your talk page, User:Guycalledryan. --Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 13:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all the articles into a single article While I don't think we need seperate articles to document the protests in each country, they were notable enough to merit a Wikipedia entry. The protests may not have drawn much covarage in US, but they did garner significant coverage in Canada and Sri Lanka. We're also trying our best not to clutter the Sri Lankan Civil War article, so a merge there wouldn't be the best option.

The nominators response to a question on his talk page "In contrast, the Tea Party protests received incredible amounts of media and political coverage" shows he's clearly refering to American media, whereas Wikipedia is supposed to contain a balanced world view. Just cos an event isn't considered important enough for Fox to give 24/7 coverage, doesn't mean it isn't important. These protest played a significant role in the end game of the Sri Lankan conflict

Also, note to closing admin, Eelamstylez77 appears to be canvassing to ask editors to vote to keep these articles. [1] --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for "canvassing." It was not meant to be that way, just a notification to other editors. I also didn't know it was prohibited in Wikipedia. Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 18:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• support all of Snowolf's argumentation. WP should strive to present a world wide view, including smaller countries. Merge all of those articles together seems the best way to assure this coverage without overcharging the SL civil war article. I also noted the canvassing. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The claim of non-notability is ridiculous. Significant coverage in reliable sources is abundant here; keep and let the decision of how many articles are needed be settled once they have matured to their natural length.  Skomorokh  17:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Please look here [2] and the articles need improvement the Tamil Protests outside the UK parlaiment for example are notable here there are more then 800000 hits [3] CNN ,BBC and virtually every major network has followed them and these are not a single day event.Please look here [4].Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, the closing admin may note the canvassing. Amalthea 16:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I am the creator of 2009 Tamil protests in Norway and had the page on watch and hence would have noticed even if User:Eelamstylez77 had not commented on my talkpage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or at best Merge into one article. None of the protests are all that notable and not enough to warrant separate articles. TJ Spyke 17:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is enough coverage in mainstream media. Taprobanus (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, the closing admin may note the canvassing. Amalthea 16:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It has a lot of attention in the media. It's better to keep the articles as it is. Each article is long anyway. The protests are still going and the articles will expand. If we merge it, then that article would be very long, which would be eventually have to be made into separate articles like it was before. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, the closing admin may note the canvassing. Amalthea 16:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, I wrote the article for the 2009 British Tamil Protest [5]. I don't need User:Eelamstylez77 to convince me, he just informed me. Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 2009 Tamil protests in Norway, no opinion about the rest. The notion that "None of the protests are all that notable" is simply not correct - not close. Punkmorten (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep main article, especially in view of ensuing events, merge the protests in .... articles to main one. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep These articles should be kept as is. No need to merge them because they are from different countries and different people are involved John harvey125 (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete or at best Merge into one article. None of the protests are all that notable and not enough to warrant separate articles.99.245.37.46 (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you felt that way then why did you even bother editing it in the first place? Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 23:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequitur.99.245.37.46 (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge together - coverage in Canada certainly has been extensive and the protests have reached the point where a member of parliament is facing some heat for being at one. My understanding is that coverage and impact in other countries--apart from the USA--has been likewise extensive. //roux   18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• conditional Keep/Merge smaller articles into main - I'm not familiar with the coverage of the other demonstrations around the world, but the Tamil protests in Toronto, Canada were a major news item for several weeks. I'm of the opinion that the 'protests in canada' article is strong enough to stand on its own, along with any others from the list of a comparable size. However, I think that all the articles in this series are in dire need of cleanup if they are to remain. POV is a major concern for me with these articles (along with most articles around this conflict), as the main contributor seems to be one of the protesters. I will admit that Eelamstylez77 has done made a very honest effort to respond to POV criticisms and has improved the Canadian article accordingly. I think the style of the articles also needs to be improved if the result here is keep. Updates are also needed since the 'end' of the civil war has changed the situation drastically. These articles have potential if the POV is kept in check. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I disagree with the assumptions made by the nominator. The protests in Canada, particularly in Toronto, were the subject of extensive media coverage for weeks, and gave rise to a number of debates over the appropriate scope of peaceful protests and how a multicultural country like Canada should address issues such as the civil war in Sri Lanka and the record of organizations such as the Tamil Tigers. The article on the Canadian protests is already sufficiently long that it would be inappropriate to merge the Canadian article - the articles on the protests in Norway, India, the U.K. and Australia are far less well developed, and I would support merging the Norway, India, U.K. and Australia articles into the general article until such time (if ever) that they are better developed and can stand on their own. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep all articles,as protests they are notable just like tianamen square etc --Icemansatriani (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole.99.245.37.46 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No.--Icemansatriani (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 Tamil Protests as notable as the Tiananmen Square protests? Uh, yeah - hyperbole.99.245.37.46 (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP address user, I wonder what part of the world you come from. Its about time you read some 'world news' on news sites and newspapers. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? WP:CIV, if you please. Read the site rules if you need refreshing. And what news organizations you know of have compared the Tamil protests to Tiananmen Square? LOL. Please.99.245.37.46 (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:CIV? I don't believe I said anything offensive. And I'm talking about news channels such as BBC, CNN, CBC. Try a Google search of Tiananmen square protests and Tamil protests. They both give the same amount of hits.Eelam StyleZ (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Read some 'world news' on news sites and newspapers"? I say again, WP:CIV. And ... no Google gives far more hits on Tiananmen Square protests than Tamil protests. 20 years after the fact. FWIW. If you really think the two are comparable, you should take your own advice.99.245.37.46 (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm good with the knowledge I have, thank you very much. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the average opinions raised on this page, merge small Tamil protest articles for now with the 2009 Tamil protests for now but definitely keep 2009 Tamil protests in Canada and probably 2009 Tamil protests in the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no reason why Canadian Tamil protests article should be deleted and the UK protests have also made significant news overseas as well. Other protests are still stubs and are incomplete, meaning there is alot more to be written on them. But for now I guess it would be okay to merge them into the main article and later isolate them into separate articles if they are well developed. Bottom line, definitely do not delete. These events deserve to be documented and are encyclopedic. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note to closing admin, the notifications, alleged as canvassing, I sent to the editors were the creators and contributors of the protest articles that have been considered for deletion, as they said. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHY ARE YOU VOTING TWICE ON THIS PAGE? Please delete one of your votes. You've been canvassing hard since this article was nominated - I, for one, don't buy your explanation.99.245.37.46 (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. I see the above posting as an elaboration of his opinion stated earlier, taking into account other editor's opinions. No need to use ALLCAPS by the way, there is no need to get emotional. This AfD will be closed as keep anyway. BTW, it would be very nice if you could register.Jasy jatere (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It's another entry, with another vote recorded. If he intended to elaborate, he should modify his first vote. People shouldn't be registering two different opinions here, thus the ALLCAPS. No need to register.99.245.37.46 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Perhaps WP:CIV could help? :) Also, what proof do you have about my "hard" canvassing? I don't play politics here. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice comeback with WP:CIV. lol You sure are playing politics. Please read the site rules if you need refreshing. You've already admitted your canvassing and apologized for it - you should have left it there.99.245.37.46 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't need your certification right now -- let's try and stick to the point. I did not deny what I did. You just claimed I was canvassing "hard." I don't think I begged random editors or desperately persuaded them. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have anything against me, lets just get it cleared up right now. You are CONSTANTLY reverting my good faith edits to the Canadian article for NO particular reason and I don't want this to turn into an edit war. I'm sorry but I haven't had a problem with any editor but you since I created it. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the main article and merge any important unique information from the others. There is no particular reason for keeping them all when there's an appropriate main place that can accommodate all the material. DGG (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What we have to keep in mind if we are to merge is that protests in Canada and UK have their own notability with thousands of mainstream sources on their own. Taprobanus (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that merging all of the articles makes a lot of sense, although I agree with DGG that some of the less developed articles could be merged into the main article. If we merged all of the articles, the information on the protests in Canada would immediately seem like a good candidate to be split-off into its own article, due to length and number of sources. I'm not sure it makes sense to merge now and likely split not long thereafter. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree Taprobanus (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keep all the articles till they get matured. You can't put into one bascket, all those important venues and events of the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora all over the world.Hillcountries (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at best Strong Merge. The comparison with Tiananmen Square really helps illustrate the lack of NPOV of some of these users.206.210.126.186 (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment NPOV is no reason to delete Taprobanus (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? It speaks to bias in THEIR voting. Nothing to do with mine, and nothing to do with my reason for voting Delete.99.245.37.46 (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you really think this article needs to be deleted then you need to stop editing and stop trying to plan how you think the article should be. Very contradicting. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2009 (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.