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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Auburn Riot (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)

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON are obvious. The name of the article made up by an editor that is apparently pushing an Alt-right agenda. I am One of Many (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice that for an article on a riot, it is remarkably devoid of any mention of rioting. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Pushing an alt-right agenda..." Except I'm not close to being alt-right, try again. EthnicKekistan (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that, and maybe you even believe it, but all we can go by is your actual edits here, which do in fact appear to be pushing an agenda. Also, in this specifc case you wrote an article on a riot that hadn't happened yet but that you apparently decided was going to happen. That isn't ok no matter what your agenda is, you can't just make up an event that you think might happen and expect Wikipedia to host an article on it. I think an argument could be made to speedy delete this as a hoax. It is now 9:30 in Alabama, and still no reports of actual rioting. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is making an article about a subject, promoting their beliefs? You think I wouldn't list it at a hate group, which would seem to undermine their promotion efforts. Perhaps I'm just interested in the subject at hand? EthnicKekistan (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You made up the subject at hand. Not one of the sources you used has the word "riot" in it, and I just searched again to see if there was any new coverage indicating a riot and didn't find one thing. That being the case, I have nominated it for speedy deletion as a hoax. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral leaning on rename to 2017 Auburn protests. KMF (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken another look for coverage, as this actual event is long over and it is about 1:30 AM in Alabama. As far as I can tell, three people were arrested. Three. This is just not a significant event no matter what we chose to call it and there should not be any article or redirect. At the very most, a brief section in the article on Spencer is warranted. We shouldn't let someone make up a non-event and then argue about what to call it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox I'm in agreement with you here - I don't see how a redirect is warranted whether it's protest or riot but given the moderate coverage in media, a mention in the Spencer article is probably warranted (not as a riot.) There is not a single reference on google to "Auburn riot" in 2017. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DECLINING SPEEDY One may argue the notability of the event here, but the article is not a hoax or vandalism. An event actually occurred, though the article exaggerates its significance in a politically charged, emotional appeal fashion. From a political perspective and being of the other persuasion(mein Hertz schlägt links), I see it less as pushing an Alt-Right agenda and more as the work of someone of my political persuasion. Be that as it may, the hoax argument is something of an ad hominem and I find it unpersuasive in this discussion. Let the AfD proceed. If the article survives, it should be renamed as suggested on talk page and as recommended by KMF. struck Dlohcierekim 21:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 10:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily object to declining it, but I do object to your chareaterization of the nomination. At the time this was created, the speech hadn't even happened yet, and yet here we had an article on the riot that occured during it. Riots usually aren't scheduled in advance and announced in reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge any relevant info into the Spencer article. This is not a notable event, and not a riot, in any case.Rockypedia (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Shouldn't an article about a riot include some mention somewhere of, you know, a riot? Even with a name change, this is a case where a controversial person was to give a speech, and others did not like that. That happens all the time; thoroughly commonplace. If there's anything about this one that makes it stand out, where is it? Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Shouting and small crowd fracas hardly stretch to even the most minute definition of 'riot'. Also reads more as a WP:PROMO of an unremarkable speaking appearance than any serious attempt to describe a conflict around an event. My patience is exhausted with the article creator too; they were brought up on ANI with a UAA issue and in the aftermath of the Republic of Kekistan AfD, the community showed incredible patience thinking the two weren't connected, but this shows my fears were warranted. Nate • (chatter) 14:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and add relevant content to the "public speaking" subsection of Richard B. Spencer. I also think we need to explain to whoever created this article how Wikipedia works; this is information that was going to be added to Spencer's article (especially given the judge's order), but it's a waste of our time to try to make a separate article out of this non-event. Please respect our time.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which speedy deletion criteria? Dlohcierekim 17:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or Snow Delete if you prefer. I don't think anyone seriously thinks this non-event is history.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pity is we do not have an appropriate speedy criterion. <sigh> Best to let the process run its full course to avoid creating grounds for appeal. And you might be surprised how hard it can be to gain consensus for a deletion. I was. Dlohcierekim 18:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty clear WP:SNOW situation. I also think a reasonable argument could be made that WP:A7 applies. A7 covers events, and an article on something that didn't actually happen by definition does not make a credible claim of significance. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As things that didn't happen for $500, Alex. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a non-neutral article about a minor event of unestablished and unlikely WP:LASTING significance. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (and it would be perfectly justifiable to speedy delete as a blatant hoax, CSD G3) - no source reflects any "riot" occurring. The sources show that a neo-Nazi spoke, a few hundred people demonstrated, and there was one fistfight. This is worthy of two or three sentences in Richard B. Spencer and possibly one line at history of Auburn University. Nothing more. Neutrality^talk 22:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Adding my flake to the SNOW. A "minor disturbance involving three arrests" (per the current lead) neither qualifies as a "riot" nor merits a standalone Wikipedia article. (I understand the article initially described a "current period of civil unrest", which was inaccurate.) Funcrunch (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I'd rather see headline renamed since it appears it wasn't a riot. But the event received substantial reliable coverage. Cllgbksr (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The legal battle before the event is what got the majority of the coverage, and in fact was the only coverage available when this ill-advised article was created because the actual event had not in fact taken place yet. In all, it's a minor legal decision by a regional court that could easily be covered ina few sentences at the article on Mr. Spencer. If it turns out later to have some far reaching impact on future legal decisions, I could see the case itself having an article, but not his minor event. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non event subject. This is not notable. No merging of any part to anywhere else is warranted. The article, starting with the title, is an attempt to inflame emotion and blow out of proportion said non event. As many have said before, Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a battlefield, so this article is not suitable for these reasons as well. The event-- misdescribed as a "riot" is not notable in and of itself, lacking in significant coverage. As Beeblebrox points out, "the legal battle before the event" and other content not directly related to the event per se has the majority of coverage. Squeeze it dry and shake it out, and the gist of the story is this-- A controversial figure chose to speak at a school where the students found his presence and his message objectionable. Demonstrations of those objections got out of hand so that three people were arrested, an unspecified number were injured. (note the vagueness of "several" in the article)-- This is hardly sufficient for an encyclopedia article, despite the attempted conflation of background and exaggeration of actual occurrences. Perhaps enough for a feature in a newspaper-- Wikipedia is not the news. Dlohcierekim 21:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• General question Was this the event that the police unmasked ANTIFA protesters? Cllgbksr (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched "police unmasked ANTIFA protesters" and came up with a whole pile of alt-right blogs and other unreliable sources, so I guess... maybe? Not sure why it matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter other than unmasking ANTIFA protesters being a new twist by law enforcement. Was just curious. I was referring to an article I saw which is a reliable source. [1] Cllgbksr (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing particularly unusual about that. One the cops came up witht he idea of designated protest zones around controversial events (which seems like it popped up in the ate 80's/early 90's) they've often used them to control crowds in this manner. No masks, no metal objects bigger than a car key, no pepper spray that you keep for defense, pat downs and metal detectors, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Not significant, let alone having anything to do with establishing notability of the subject. Dlohcierekim 03:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable for the federal court decision, see SPLC Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; incident merits a brief summary @ Richard B. Spencer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:56, 23 April 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.