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. Bishonen | talk 01:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Rinkeby riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A minor event that lacks encyclopedic relevance or long-term societal impact. Does not meet WP:NEVENT. Significant RS coverage not found. WP:NOTNEWS applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Lakey may be correct about this riot by immigrant youth being the first such riot in Sweden. Certainly it is part a growing series of immigrant neighborhood riots in Sweden, and as the apparant earliest in this series, it gains significance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lakey doesn't say that it was the first in Sweden, not even that it was the first in Stockholm, only that it was "in recent years". This article on the Swedish Wikipedia list a number of riots, though not all are youth riots. The first such that I found was The student riot in Lund 1793 and there have been a number of notable riots in recent years. So, there is no notability for being the first of series. Sjö (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Ongoing coverage during rioting in Rinkeby in 2013 and again in 2017 sparked renewed coverage of the 2010 riots by press around the world. The fact that thousands of people were prompted to visit this page at the time of the 2017 Rinkeby riots shows the utility to our users of keeping articles on riots past. In fact, noting that this page was created not in 2010, but in 2013 makes it highly probably that this riot came to creator's attention due to the fact that this 2010 event was widely covered by the media in 2013.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We follow sources in determining notability; in this case, news coverage in English-language searches has been global, with a major wave of coverage of this 2010 even in February 2017. In addition to coverage in sources like the book discussed above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your suggestion to "delete this page and add the information to" is irregular. Normal procedure would be Redirect and Merge in order to WP:PRESERVE both the usefulness of the search term "2010 Rinkeby riots" , (gSearch: [2]), I continue to think article should be kept on the grounds of coverage that has been global, ongoing and in-depth, but if it is to be merged, a better target might be to a title like: Rinkeby riots, 2010, 2013, 2017 accomplished by merging this article with 2017 Rinkeby riots.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the mention in the book is about one sentence; the other two analysts appear to be discussing the immigrant rioting in general, not this specific event, unless I'm mistaken. I still don't see how this particular riot stands out and why it should have a stand-alone entry. To preserve article history, perhaps it could be redirected to 2017 Rinkeby riots? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2017 (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.