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. Sandstein 09:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply

2016 Albuquerque riot

2016 Albuquerque riot (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

I am nomination this article for deletion because of lack of notability, specially for events pursuant to WP:EVENT. In my nomination, I make the following observations based on event notability criteria:

• Lasting effects: The event indicated is not precedent nor a catalyst for something else. No broad societal changes occurred nor legislative or government behaviors. There does not even appear to be reference to this event in a source since (or at least significantly enough for this user to find it). Four years later, and this has not changed. Rather, this event is, at most, a note in the general unrest surrounding the initial campaign of Donald Trump.
• Geographical scope: This event was, at its greatest impact, notable for Albuquerque, just one city. There are no indications of any broader impact. The event was covered by a few national media sources, as cited in the article, but these appear to be merely continuing coverage from the general unrest around the Trump campaign.
• Depth of coverage: I stated this in the last point, but the coverage of this event is limited. The coverage was not in-depth, but merely indicates that this event happened, arrests occurred, and that Trump commented on the event.
• Duration of coverage: This event appears to have been covered for two days, including the day it first occurred. This event was “only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion.”
• Diversity of sources: Again building off previous comments, national coverage of this event did occur. However, other than local media sources, the national coverage is heavily reliant on AP for its information. This can be seen in the USA TODAY source that states, “Albuquerque attorney Doug Antoon told AP...” Thus, even these multiple sources should not be considered diverse.
• Criminal acts: This article also harkens back to the circumstances of “criminal acts.” The coverage was mostly “breaking news,” without any lasting influence or significance.

As a few miscellaneous comments, this article hardly supports its assertion that it documents the “2016 Albuquerque riot.” While some sources indicate a “riot” occurred, the very limited scope does not lend to the notability of being about the 2016 Albuquerque riot. No source justifies such a broad categorization of the event. With only three arrests for an event that lasted half a day, the article is giving great credence to what I would subjectively call a “footnote” in a broad history. For my systematic analysis of criteria and general opinion on the article, I nominate it for deletion.

I did not propose this article for deletion due to the controversial nature of the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections, and the strong opinions about related events.

Zkidwiki ( talk) 03:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Zkidwiki ( talk) 03:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zkidwiki ( talk) 03:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Zkidwiki ( talk) 03:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 03:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment -- With polling day a few days away, this is not the appropriate time to consider articles on issues relating to American elections. I have no view on notability or otherwise. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Greetings, I appreciate your comment on this matter. However, this article relates to a minor happening in the background of the 2016 election. Because it has no lasting impact, be it that polls are opening for an election in 2020 seems hardly relevant. This event is not more notable merely because the object of a group involved was to disrupt the campaign of who happens to be the current incumbent. Zkidwiki ( talk) 10:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT. If there is no consensus to delete, the article definitely needs a name change. KidAd talk 01:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: very plainly lacks the lasting effects and duration of coverage we require of events. There's no reason this shouldn't be discussed in a couple of sentences somewhere, but I can't find a suitable merge target. Merging into Protests against Donald Trump would probably raise issues of weight, as that article currently covers 2016 protests in a sensibly concise way. If 2016 United States presidential election in New Mexico or List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign were rewritten to meet WP:INDISCRIMINATE then one of those might be a suitable target, but that isn't very likely to happen. The argument that we ought to suspend any discussion of articles about U.S. politics for the duration of the election has neither any basis in policy nor any merit. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 20:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, exaggerated "riot" without lasting significance. Geschichte ( talk) 08:36, 8 November 2020 (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.