Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police invasion of UCT campus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. By and large it seems the majority feel this material does not meet inclusion criteria, but even those suggesting the article be deleted note that the incident can be written about in another article. Therefore, allowing for a merge to University of Cape Town seems a logical compromise. However, I strongly urge that a discussion regarding the merger take place on the target talk page prior to performing the merge to ensure that only relevant content is moved. Shereth 22:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Police invasion of UCT campus

Police invasion of UCT campus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

A POV, poorly-referenced rant, written mostly in first-person or as a memoir, of student unrest. Tagged unreferenced for over 15 months. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep: per TerriersFan and improvements to the article. Also, I have concerns about systemic bias in the deletion of this article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep or Merge/Redirect to University of Cape Town. This article could be salvaged with a drastic rewrite and significant improvement in sources, but as it stands, the article is problematic. The event is a notable one that should be included in the article for the University in a much shorter version, if the issues with the article cannot be addressed appropriately here. I am more than willing to consider my vote if the article's issues are addressed. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Vote has been modified to reflect improvements to article. Further work to make this a more thoroughly encyclopedic article is still needed. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Another instance where we should should be addressing the issues rather than throwing our hands up in horror and going for deletion. I have removed the section that recounts a student's recollection which is the worst of the POV. The Cape Times is a perfectly reliable source and the extract is informative, historic and confirms the accusations of censorship. The key claim to notability is that this (quoting from a reliable source here) "was the first time police had used gunfire to quell a student disturbance on a predominantly white campus." Additional reliable sources to verify, amongst other facts, the reasons for the protest can be found here. If, as I suggest, this clearly meets notability standards then I am happy to rewrite this as a sourced, encyclopedic page but noting the pile of delete !votes above, I am reluctant to put a lot of time into a page that will be wasted if it gets deleted. I await reactions. TerriersFan (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - OK; I have cleaned it up. I will add sources and additional content, as above, if deletion-commenting editors elect to change their views. TerriersFan (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I was asked to reconsider my !vote in light of some improvements. The article still has a long way to go. There is almost no discussion of events that predicated a police entry of the campus (the word "invasion" is POV; presumably the police had legal jurisdiction, whether or not they had previously exercised it). Riots? Student unrest? Peaceful protests? What were they protesting? What precipitated the police entry? What are our sources for the redactions and censorship? (I'm fully believing it, but we need sources.) Finally, there should be consideration of whether an overall context is a better focus, e.g. Student unrest in South Africa or 1982 apartheid protests (just general suggestions here). --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - the reason for the protest is contained here and the Cape Times, a reliable source, reports the censorship. Much of what you are seeking can be found in the sources here. TerriersFan (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • merge somewhere appropriate. This is not significant enough fora separate article.DGG (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: POV poorly-referenced article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think this should be re-listed, as most of the !votes were given before the revisions. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. This is my first pass of the article, and I feel that none of the issues/problems noted previously have been addressed. I feel that the article's title, and its highly emotive tone are unsuited to WP. The article needs to be rebuilt from the ground up with clearer context or a better documentation of the origins. As it stands, there is only the Cape Times as a source, and details are scant due to censorship. The Cape Times as a source makes a big deal about not being able to publish certain details and photos. However, after looking at the NYT article, I feel that at best this is just another storm in a students' teacup to protest a military cross-border raid. All the rest appears to be speculation. I propose that the incident be written about in the UCT article, and later expanded into a separate, neutrally titled article as and when appropriate. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (as edited)
  • Weak Delete I rarely speak up for the deletion of any article. I believe this subject probably deserves an article, but this isn't it. Lack of WP:RS and POV problems abound, starting with the WP:NPOV title. We have a single source, admittedly unreliable by the virtue that it is censored. We have a complete lack of context where I can't even tell which students use the "upper campus." I would recommend somebody userfy this one and recreate it under a more appropriate title later. Jim Miller (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The event appears to have been notable, with significant coverage in at least two independant reliable sources. The title should be changed and the content improved, but those are not issues for AfD. There is a potential issue of systemic bias where information suppressed by a government is less well covered than it might have otherwise been, in which case the subject may be even more notable than the coverage might suggest, which is a further argument for keeping the article. If this event was part of a notable social phenomena in South Africa at the time then it could be merged into a more general article on that phenonema. But that merging can be done later outside of AfD once a suitable wider scope has been identified. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I lack enough knowledge of the subject to comfortably give an opinion of its viability, but if kept it most certainly must be retitled, as the current title is a violation of WP:NPOV as it indicates an opinion as to the event. Suggest an alternate word like "raid" be used instead. Also UCT means nothing outside a small region; the name should be spelled out in full. 23skidoo (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - certainly a rename is required. My suggestion is 1987 conflict at University of Cape Town but I am sure there are others. TerriersFan (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to 1987 in South Africa. Not noteworthy enough for a stand alone article, but deserves a mention here. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The subject meets the general notability criteria of having significant coverage in reliable independent sources. By what standard is it not noteworthy enough? Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
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.