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 merge to Protests against the Iraq War. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 20, 2010 anti-war protest[edit]

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

Will there ever be enough content for this article to be something more than a stub? It doesn't seem connected to anything other than an entry on Protests against the Iraq War. Shii (tock) 14:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough with the citations we have to make a bigger article, and I'll bet we can find even more citations for it. Flagged for rescue. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The citation may be enough for what it is, what comes at this point is to determine what it needs to be said about the subject. Not everything does. Analyzing the sources you may find something to include, but in the question of what would be included is preferred to let the subject provide the material, in confidence that the source for it will be readily available. The subject is definitely something that needs to be kept, and anything that could be added requires only the need to be added as well - frankie^MR (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Protests_against_the_Iraq_War. There's not much available to sustain an article, and the mother page could really use the material. Also a particular date is not a point were you want to break the reading flow of the subject unless that date represents a major landmark, and even then reading would be intruded. The original list is pretty long though, and perhaps a better presentation may be achieved if a yearly division is considered - frankie^MR (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It gets coverage. Google news archive search for "March 20" "2010" and "anti-war protest" [1] shows results. The same group had a protest that day in Hollywood [2]. It was a notable event, they protesting in at least two areas, and getting news coverage for it, including in foreign news sources. Dream Focus 01:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching about for different search terms also yield some valid results mixed in with others. [3] They even give coverage months later to the trial of the protesters arrested during this protest. Dream Focus 01:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unconvinced that mere media coverage makes this specific event distinct from the general pattern of antiwar protests and deserving of separate coverage. Shii (tock) 01:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Dream Focus' search shows no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to speak of. After the immediate aftermath of March 20, 2010, and after excluding false positives, I could only find one hit -- this short post in WP's 'Breaking News Blog' on the trial of Cindy Sheehan for her participation.[4]. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how this AfD ends, I encourage a discussion on the talk page about an appropriate merge.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Protests against the Iraq War. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:EVENT . No long standing notability eg change of policy as a result of this event. LibStar (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: (to Protests against the Iraq War, or as otherwise appropriate). Fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. (Otherwise delete.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It possibly wasn't clear prior to recent improvements made to the article, but this was in fact a major multi-city event supported by multiple NGOs. Opposed to a merge as the event is noteable enough to warrant dedicated coverage. Very interesting to read Dream's findings that many protestors were dressed as zombies. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would note that none of the 'keep' !votes to date have adequately addressed WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Dream Focus attempted to do so, but failed (by simply attempting to do so with WP:GOOGLEHITS, rather than identifying specific sources demonstrating continued coverage), none of the other 'keepers' appear to have even made the attempt. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The info has a place as noted above. There are hundreds of anti war protests, nothing special about this one. Szzuk (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As has been noted above, the information should be kept but there's not enough WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to merit a stand-alone article. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2011 (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.