Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/York Rainbow Peace Camp

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 Delete - a neutral referenced article could possibly be written on this, but this isn't it. If anybody wants it copied to their userspace to work on it I can do that, but this article doesn't belong in mainspace as it stands. Yomanganitalk 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] York Rainbow Peace Camp

York Rainbow Peace Camp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nomination for Deletion Fails WP:V. May fail WP:ORG even if verified. Zero google hits for "York Rainbow Peace Camp"[1]. 25 hits (none from independent,reliable sources and the 25 includes false positives) for "York Peace Camp" [2]. Zero hits for both these phrases in Factiva news database (which includes all major UK national/regional newspapers). Bwithh 02:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • delete - not notable, no sources. Probably could be speedied - wtfunkymonkey 03:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom... SkierRMH,07:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • UPDATE Please see below for a statement on the article from its creator, the interestingly named User:weallpoo, which I have copied and pasted from the article talk space Bwithh 07:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep vote from User:weallpoo

I wrote a wikipedia article today on York Rainbow Peace Camp, which I consider to have been the indicator of an astonishingly rapid rise in the amount and depth of anti-capitalist militancy in York, England in the year 2003. Prior to this, York could be considered somewhat politically apathetic, especially in terms of direct action and popular engagement in politics outside of the big 3 political parties.

The article is already being considered for deletion. I hope to defend its inclusion in wikipedia, as follows:

It is unsurprising that York Rainbow Peace Camp is not mentioned in the online media searches which have been conducted, as the "official" name of the camp was "York Rainbow Village Peace Camp" (I omitted the word "Village" in the title by accident), but the name never quite caught on anyway, and it was usually referred to locally as "the peace camp", since there was no other peace camp nearby.

Also, we at the camp scarcely saw it as a priority to woo the corporate-owned mass media. However, York's dominant local paper, "The Evening Press" did give us a surprising amount of coverage, and a search for peace camp in their archive ( http://www.thisisyork.co.uk/archive/ ) brought up 9 relevant hits;

22nd Apr 2003.

There was also a hit about a more recent peace camp in York, when Archbishop John Sentamu held a marathon prayer vigil in a blue tent inside York Minster, at the time of the Israel-Lebanon conflict. This is dated 15th Aug 2006. No evidence has been found that he was directly inspired by the events of 2003, but it could be postulated that a tradition may be emerging in the city.

Also, plugging a search for "peace hotel" into the same archive search engine will bring up more articles from the newspaper, as will searches for the names "Lara Saunders", "Ruby Robinson" and "Sky Sunshine Robinson", 3 activists who died tragically during the period in which the peace camp was active.

If my article is allowed to remain on wikipedia, I hope that I might be permitted to dedicate it to them.

Anyhow, thanks to whoever suggested the deletion, as having to support my article's inclusion has inspired me to find additional sources which can be used to bring the article up to scratch.

- Rene Thomas / "weallpoo", weallpoo@yahoo.co.uk

    • Note I copied the above statement from User:weallpoo from the article talkspace Bwithh 07:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Followup Zero hits on google for "York Rainbow Village Peace Camp"[3]; zero hits on Factiva. Bwithh 07:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The reference above to the activists killed seems to be about a fatal fire (which did not occur at the camp)[4] Bwithh 07:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


i was at the York Peace Camp and the article is accurate. The local newspaper references should support this. i have some photos of the Peace hotel i would like to put on the page, so would like it to remain. i do not think that because this was a real event with real people and not televised or in a previous book it should be deleted. it is more valid than much of the stuff on wicipedia which is pretty irrelevant and petty.

i think the author has overemphasised the role of people with mental health problems, as only a few people at the camp and hotel were such. so i would only recomend a little editiing.

  • Keep Database and search engine hits while often very helpful are NOT the ultimate test. Also this is an example where entering only a few specific search terms creates a misleading result, try "York Peace Camp" and you will find more sources, a little creativity goes a long way. Furthermore the sources provided of articles written by the York Press are valid sources. Therefore this article meets the WP:V requirements. Ratherhaveaheart 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I did try "York Peace Camp". It's in my original nomination with an assessment of the hits produced (a little creativity didn't go very far in this case). The York Press is a local city newspaper. Factiva doesn't include this but does include the Yorkshire Post and the Yorkshire Evening Post, the local regional or county newspapers, as well as the Press Association Regional Newswire for Yorkshire and Humberside. No hits for the search terms from these sources showed up (there are hits for protests and peace camps against US activities at military bases RAF Menwith Hill and RAF Fylingdales but none for the subject of the article). I don't think coverage by the local city newspaper is sufficient for encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I apologize I did not see the "York Peace Camp" search reference before, I still maintain that the Google search is not the definative test of either verifiability or notability. However your opinion that local city newspapers are insufficient is not supported by Wikipedia policies. Under WP:V the requirements for sources are that they are preferably in English, that they are not of dubious reliability and they are not self-published. Under WP: N, "what constitutes "published works" is intentionally broad, including published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, published reports by consumer watchdog organizations and government agencies." The York Press meets these requirements. Ratherhaveaheart 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
My understanding of the articles for deletion process is the look at the arguments rather than the votes, to make sure that the WP:ORG reason for deletion is addressed, the proposed policy states "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source. Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." and "Notability can be asserted for organizations through: Inclusion in third party published materials. A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject" Here the York Press articles provide the reliable third party source which is verification and notability. Just in case this debate starts to turn to the ad hoc arguments I have seen in the past I would like to state my independence, this was my first exposure to York Peace camp. I participate in the articles for deletion debates which I think provide illustrative examples of the application of WP policies. Also those that support my philosophy that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide references for research, so if the article would be useful for research than I generally vote to Keep. Sorry for being long winded Ratherhaveaheart 04:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
More evidence is provided by the 2003 Yorkagainstthewar webpage, which should convince doubters that if this is a hoax it must be one that was put in motion at least 3 years ago!

May I thank icathryn (who was at the peace camp doing daily news flyers (only hardcopy, I think), and Ratherhaveaheart for their support and for recognising that this is important to me, and to hundreds of people I don't even know how to contact any more. I would also put to Bwithh that it is not only the bigshot national media who can validly document an event. If you have further misgivings, why not add a wikipage on "The Great Petty Peace Camp Hoax", or why not email

The daughter of celebrity astrologer Jonathan Cainer also stayed and worked at the peace camp, so he may remember it too. There are email links on his website ( http://www.cainer.com/ )

  • Comment 1) I personally don't think this is a hoax (someone else added that tag) - just unencyclopedic and having insufficient sourcing/evidence of notability 2) Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a memorial site, as per WP:NOT Bwithh 04:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - but edit heavily to remove the irrelevant, POV and tangential material (about 90% of the present article). And change the name to York peace camp, which seems to be a better-known label. Definitely not a hoax! Gnusmas 22:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The article was not nominated on grounds of being a suspected hoax. Bwithh 23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the hoax tag now, since it was never explained by the editor who placed it there and seems to be confusing people about the afd Bwithh 23:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:V isn't now a problem, given current sourcing, though article still needs some cleanup (and the "dedication" isn't allowed). JamesMLane t c 00:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sinlge-sourced article = WP:NPOV cannot be ensured. ~ trialsanderrors 07:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Where is the basis for this argument, I have read the WP:NPOV numerous times and I just don't see it. Ratherhaveaheart 18:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
A single source presents a single POV by definition. ~ trialsanderrors 19:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This is an incorrect statement. A single newspaper article may present a number of different viewpoints. Furthermore Wp: NPOV is not about having one viewpoint it is about having the correct unbiased neutral viewpoint, as long as the source provides that than it is not in violation of the policy. Ratherhaveaheart 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
about having the correct unbiased neutral viewpoint ← Yeah, that is missing from the article too. ~ trialsanderrors 19:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom, plus the way it's wrtten actually makes it look like a vanity article. Plus 0 results for Google, Yahoo, or MSN. Wizardman 00:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Montco 02:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Insufficiently notable organization. Lack of coverage by multiple, third-party published sources. Also, serious WP:OR and WP:POV issues which cannot be properly researched because of lack of sources. -- Satori Son 18:04, 30 November 2006 (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.