Deletion of Protests of 2019 (2nd nomination)

Comment: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary substantiation. In this case, we are asked to believe that there was a global wave of protests in 2019 and that these were a single linked phenomenon. However, the level of substantiation you would expect to see if anyone of note actually considered this to be an actual thing simply isn't there instead we have articles comparing protests, or discussing the year 2019. 2019 may have had more protests than other years, but if it did then the subject is 2019 (year)|2019, the year, or the events of 2019, or a List of protests in the 21st century|list of protests ongoing in 2019, all of which already have their own articles. As such this article is duplication. As regards the individual protests discussed in this article, every single one of them that is actually notable already has its own page. This article is thus a  for various political theories favoured by editors about world politics and economics in general. Finally I think there is a definite  issue here in that almost as soon as the year ended, people stopped talking about protests in 2019 - for a supposed year-long, global wave of protest, you would expect the coverage of it to be sustained beyond the year itself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:SUSTAINED)

Comment: The concept is unavoidably |synthesis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: plenty of sources, passes  guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: there does not need to be any objective proof that the ''Protests of 2019'' need to to be inherently unique in comparison to all other years, or all other protests. this article simply chronicles the protests that took place in 2019. it is no different than any other historical article focusing upon a single year; and obviously, we have myriads of such articles, such 2020 in sports, 2020 in film, 2020 in aviation. how is this any different, and why should it need meet a different standard of otable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: There does not seem to be a subject here. The references are mostly sources discussing various protests that are going on at the time but this does nothing to mark 2019 out as special or the various protests as linked. The events are real but the link alleged is |original research. A similarly spurious article could probably be written about almost any other year in modern times. (Please nobody take that as a challenge!) Despite this we have no such other articles despite there being many years where there were a lot of protests. We do have an article on the Protests of 1968 but that is quite clearly a genuine subject in exactly the way that this isn't. 1968 is still remembered for its worldwide wave of (at least partially linked) protests decades later and this receives ongoing attention from historians. 2019 is not long gone but pretty much nobody is talking about a "Global Protest Wave of 2019". It gets one hit in Google Scholar, one hit in Google News and guess what the top hit for the phrase is in a normal Google search? Yep. It's this very article! I also found https://www.gdi.ch/en/publications/trend-updates/2019-year-protest this and https://leveller.ca/2020/01/a-world-alight/ this which sound promising until, yep, they both lead straight back to this very article as being the source of the phrase. So, insofar as this is a subject at all it is only a subject because somebody wrote a Wikipedia article claiming that it was and we failed to delete it before a few people started to assume it must be real because it was in Wikipedia. It is time to correct that mistake
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)