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. Per WP:SNOW but also because by the time this AFD closes, this event will have happened and the nominator's statement will no longer apply. No prejudice to a renomination after the event, but I suggest a much stronger deletion rationale. v/r - TP 22:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2012 Wikipedia blackout[edit]

2012 Wikipedia blackout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. It hasn't even happened yet. →Στc. 03:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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. Mtking ^(edits) 04:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Keep, article passes WP:GNG, WP:EVENT. Gsingh (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
• Keep - This is a watershed event in the history of Wikipedia. Dough4872 05:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep This AFD won't close until after the blackout. --Rschen7754 05:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
• Keep "It hasn't happened yet" is an invalid reason to delete. — Moe ε 06:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• But WP:NOTNEWS is. →Στc. 06:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

• That wasn't the point, but okay. At any rate, it passes WP:GNG. — Moe ε 07:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[reply]
  • That's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL there.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
    • Yeah that's an interpretation that would mean we should never write about any future events. There's nothing in the article that's speculating about the nature of the "event"; it's simply reporting what reliable sources are saying about a notable event. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 07:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'm sorry, my comment was lost because barts1a felt that my rollback was wrong, so he undid every edit I did to the page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. →Στc. 07:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, this AfD was brought up in IRC by Σ. —WFC— 07:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

• But when the subject at the moment is a YouTube video, and then someone randomly claims I started a WP:POINTy AfD... On WP:Canvassing, Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors can be disruptive for any number of reasons. If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of "spam" and is disruptive to that user's experience.→Στc. 07:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You know as well as I do the discussion for the past hour before that was the Wikipedia blackout. — Moe ε 07:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
• Merge or Rename. mechamind90 07:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename in order to acknowledge that while Wikipedia is the most prominent, several sites such as Reddit are also blacking out on this date.Brian Dell (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would be supportive of a rename in order to broaden the scope, but am unsure what to rename to. —WFC— 07:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • How about "2012 US Anti-Piracy Laws Protest"? A little unwieldy, I admit, but would allow us to cover almost everything on Jan 18 that is anti-SOPA/anti-PIPA.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Any discussion about renamed should be at talk:2012 Wikipedia blackout. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep 330 results on google news some of them important, like Yahoo news, ZNet. It didn't happened yet, but its already notable. If you guys want to delete the article and create it after the black out, you can. But its just a waste of time for everybody. Per WP:COMMONSENSE--Neo139 (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Obvious keep I wont insult anyone's intelligence in explaining. Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. People want to link-farmer this in the 24 hours leading up to the blackout. Afterwards the real article will emerge. Alarbus (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Once something reaches a certain level of notability it is reasonable to have an article. This isn't too soon as of the time I am writing this unless they don't carry it out and there is not reason thus far to believe the foundation won't.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep definitely notable Georgeslegloupier (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• KeepIf it is not notable then why bother doing it - surely the whole point of it is to make an impact. Vrenator ^talk 09:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge to the SOPA article. Navel gazing. Tsk. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep This is certainly not a routine news event! Wikipedia is the 8th most frequented website and our community has never engaged in a protest before. There will definitely be more media coverage of this on and after January 18. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 10:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. BBC article here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete/merge. Not notable in its own right as much as part of a larger movement. Recreate if there are notable reactions/consequences specific to Wikipedia, otherwise just have a common article for the blackout protest or cover it on the main article. --kissekatt (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and Rename. It already has a level of notability to be a clear keep, and if nothing else, WP:NOLAW because before the day is over, it will be a quite good article in all aspects. But as other have pointed out, the name need to be fixed as wikipedia is not alone in this event. Belorn (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. We've somehow gotten lost in the presumption that this future event will be notable, when the bill being protested is already sunk, and that we can cover this neutrally. We're using sources which are primarily based on the press release. I just removed the WMF press release from the article; why is it that an article about a future event is now allowed to have a press release in it. We've got a screenshot of the proposed design, which will inevitable be different from the real thing. This is how we loose our neutrality. This article promotes our blackout. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. This future event is already getting a wide coverage in the media. --eugrus (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep but Rename/Merge into an article about the SOPA/PIPA blackouts in general. The blackout of multiple prominent sites in protest of SOPA/PIPA is more notable, more valuable as information, and frankly would be a more interesting topic to read about, than the blackout of one, and a separate article on each prominent website to have blacked out would be silly. Xmoogle (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And I've now added a requested move discussion to the talk page of the article, as others have suggested should be done. Xmoogle (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename - Part of larger movement, our taking part in it is a small piece of a big story, suggest a rename to 2012 SOPA protest blackout. We're not the only site doing this, we should not be the only subject of the article.  BarkingFish  11:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - This is all over the news today, with reliable sources all over the place. This is probably the wrong place to say this, however, but I don't understand what on earth I'm supposed to do about this other than wander off and do something else for the day, which probably isn't really the intent. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge into History of Wikipedia. This is indeed a major milestone in the history of wikipedia, but not to the point where it requires its own article and we already have a suitable place for it to incorporated. Modest Genius ^talk 12:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Audriusa (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC). Wikipedia is now the site notable enough to make the blackout of this duration notable regardless of the reasons, even it they would be purely technical. Imagine Google would close for a day! Audriusa (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• While I would say "delete" on the general grounds, I know that by the time it happens it won't matter. But I strongly urge everyone to review notability of news events (Which always suggests a wait-and-see approach to whether a news event is noteworthy). My gut tells me that it's not specifically WP's blackout but the coordinated blackout, headlined by Wikipedia's involvement, that is the notable event. My !vote is then, based on guessing how this will play out, is to move this article per Xmoogle above, to being about the internet blackout in general rather than just WP's part in it. But that's pending what news items come on the 19th and 20th to analyze the impact. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete or merge into an article about other SOPA protests. This is utterly ridiculous. --B (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep it is a clear notable event covers in multiple very reliable sources. Why it's odd for an encyclopedia to cover itself it's clearly notable. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. Enough reliable sources around to cover the topic in detail, especially afterwards. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - Comfortably meets GNG.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Article only shows one side of the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• On the subject of the 2012 Wikipedia blackout, how is the article one sided? please elaborate. Belorn (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, sure to have plenty more info starting on the 19th, already has sufficient sourcing to pass WP:N. –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, extremely noteworthy, significant coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and WP:trout the deletion creator. notable event. Igottheconch (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Obviously notable event. BTW, someone should create another article for the blackout in general: SOPA blackout since Wikipedia isn't the only site doing a blackout. We don't appear to have one yet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Keep or rename to encompass other similar protests to these laws, there are at least 1867 news articles that are covering this. The "not news" argument doesn't seem to be applicable here. This is noteworthy in of itself as this action will affect millions of people tomorrow. Also, if I may be so bold, it looks like the vast majority of people here are in favor of "keep" - maybe we have enough for consensus? If I counted correctly, there are 8 delete and 30 keep (I did not include the merge/renames unless they said "keep" or "delete"). Falconus^{p t c} 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like we have about 6 or 7 for merging/renaming. Falconus^{p t c} 17:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per WP:EVENT or Rename per Falconus's suggestion above — Johnl1479 17:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep for now. I agree WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is a concern, but I think there's a reasonable chance that this event will get enough lasting coverage or impact to justify a separate article and so we ought to keep it until we can make that assessment. At the moment, of course, we can't tell. The other concern that "It hasn't even happened yet" won't be valid when this discussion is closed. Hut 8.5 17:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge to article on SOPA. Eventually we may have an article on the general blackout, but focusing specifically on Wikipedia seems a bit too newsy to me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong DeleteBlackout has not happened yet. Hoyle Casino Man (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong Keep or Rename C'mon. Notability is obvious; this is a story that has encompassed much of the mainstream media, though if this had been posted more than a week ago, I would agree with the "premature" arguments. Renaming to include and note the other sites going dark with this is more than reasonable. --mhking (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Keep How could anyone possibly say this isn't notable? HorseloverFat (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and Rename per Falconus's suggestion. The event will have already occurred by the time this discussion ends, there's already plenty of coverage from reliable sources, the article should also cover other similar protests, and there's a reasonable possibility that the protests as a group may have a lasting effect. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (Last edited at 19:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC))Reply[reply]
• Strong Keep This is making headlines worldwide that Wikipedia is blacking out. If that is not noteworthy, I don't know what is. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}
• Keep I edit in wiki-pt, and there are has a same article. Vitor Mazuco ^Talk! 20:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - Widely and prominently reported by reliable news sources. RashersTierney (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Blackout for 24 hours, then keep. Geometry guy 20:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep self-evidently- it is news and is being covered by BBC, etc. --Smerus (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: definitely notable. Or merge into a section on a single article covering all of the SOPA/PIPA protest blackouts scheduled for the same day. --Millerjb (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep- "It hasn't happened yet is easily countered by exception one of WP:CRYSTAL. WP:NOTNEWS is countered by, quite frankly, the amount of coverage this is receiving. This isn't just some run-of the-mill service interruption. This is large, and largely unprecedented action by the website. The magnitude of this causes it to leap over the threshold of being a simple news story and into encyclopedic territory. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and rename/expand scope per Falconus. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and rename This event has gained worldwide media attention. It's on the front page of BBC and CNN. However, some may think that "2012 Wikipedia blackout" may be a conflict of interest. I suggest renaming it to something more generic, like "2012 Internet blackout" or something along those lines. -- Luke (Talk) 22:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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.