Wiki143:Articles for deletion/The Saint Patrick's Day Four

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 of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Saint Patrick's Day Four

Vanity page. Non-notable group. Google shows <50 unique hits. Madman 15:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree, it was a FOTD stunt and already forgotten. -- Jbamb 15:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP Wikipedia is not paper. --Chazz88 15:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Emphatically Strong Keep The Saint Patrick's Day Four has gotten a lot of publicity. Madman allegation that the "St. Patrick's Day Four" only shows less than 50 unique hits is dubious.

Please see the talk page for a list of newspapers that mention the protesters. 12 newspapers and 37 articles, including the NYT three times and the Washington Post.

If it is good enough to mention in the New York Times three times, it is good enough for wikipedia.

If Madman would have typed variations of The Saint Patrick's Day Four, the following results occur:

UPDATE:

• "St. Patrick's Four" on google retrieves 21,900 hits.Travb 04:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• 768 articles found on Lexis Nexis when a user types: "St. Patrick's Four" Screenshot here.

Maybe Madman didn't know much about the protest in the first place to know the varitations of spelling?

If users delete this entry, they will also delete Catonsville Nine and other notable protests. Travb 18:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, I was not aware of this group and didn't go thru all the variant spellings. My mistake. Even if I had been aware, I am still reluctant to have articles on every set of arrested protesters. From what I see, there were no overriding &/or notable issues (e.g. constitutional issues), just some vandalism and a stand against the war. As bige1977 notes below, this happens many times a year. Would you "Keepers" feel the same if this were an anti-abortion group? I too think this war was a mistake, but that doesn't make the protest notable even with mention in the NYT. Madman 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• The two reasons you gave to delete this page was:

First: Vanity page. As per: Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines "Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author." Please explain the conflict of interest that I have, and what relationship I have with the Saint Patrick's Four.

Second reason:Non-notable group, Please read over the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability the guidelines for being non-notable are: original research, unverifiable, a vanity page, or articles should be relevant to a reasonable number of people. Since the first three are obviously not applicable, that leaves the last reason: articles should be relevant to a reasonable number of people This is notable. "St. Patrick's Four" on google retrieves 21,900 hits and 768 articles found on Lexis Nexis when a user types: "St. Patrick's Four"

• "This will be the first federal conspiracy trial arising out of civil resistance to the invasion of Iraq".[1]
• "It will also be the first federal conspiracy trial of anti-war protesters since Vietnam."[2]Travb 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Without addressing any of your specific points, I feel obliged to point out that Wikipedia:Notability is a proposal and not at all policy. In fact, judging from its talk page, it's pretty unlikely ever to be adopted. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Many political protesters that engaged in vandalizm got arrested, tried, and convicted. It happens many times per year. What makes this group noteable? User:bige1977

• 3 articles in the NYT, and one in the Washington Post.Travb 23:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Travb and Madman Jcuk 01:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep What makes this group notable is the persecution they suffered for a trivial act. 82.38.97.206 17:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)mikeL
• Keep as per Travb. -- jaredwf 07:52, 5 January 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.