2023 Rutgers University strike: An event happening and being reported on is not sufficient for Wikipedia notability; it must demonstrate lasting significance beyond the time and place that it occurred.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 03:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New Jersey .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 03:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Aintabli ( talk ) 06:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given similarly topical articles such as 2021–2022 Columbia University strike and 2022 University of California academic workers' strike , pages on strikes have relevance.  There is added historical significance for this case as well.  FelpixTheMaker ( talk ) 12:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - in reply to the above ! vote, WP:OSE is seldom a viable argument at AFD.  I think you are confused about what constitutes a secondary source.  At this early date, journalistic sources are all going to be primary sources as they will only be eyewitness accounts with little in depth analysis (and how valid is any analysis of an ongoing event?) By definition, any accounts made now will lack the in depth analysis required to be secondary due to lack of perspective only time can provide.   At best, this is way TOOSOON , rendering this an unnecessary WP:FORK .  I was going to ! vote merge, but upon closer inspection of the suite of articles on Rutgers, the entire suite needs a ton of work.  The mother article is in desperate need of forking (it's longer than articles on major countries for Pete's sake) and it appears someone started doing that at some point.  At best, for now this is a couple sentences in either a recent history section or the history article.  As where to put it can't even be clearly defined the only viable option is to delete with an option to recreate once time has given perspective on the event.  69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 22:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Was going to abstain from the deletion discussion but I have to dispute some of your points.  Secondary sources already exist for the strike action- the Reactions section contains several articles which contextualize the strike and analyze it in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, a left-wards shift in the Democratic Party, and a demonstration of the shifting dynamics of Gen Z. The great majority of strike articles for the past 10 years are nearly-entirely sourced by contemporary articles, and that doesn't discount the depth of their analysis.  The 2020 Michigan graduate students' strike , for example, is entirely sourced by "primary sources" written near the dates of their events, and yet it still provides an in-depth and contextualized overview of the subject.  I understand being concerned about the shallowness of sources given how recent this event is, but that doesn't automatically discount the existence of well-researched sources just because they aren't written years in retrospect.  Assuming you meant to write Wikipedia:CFORK , I don't see how any of this article is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia.  The Rutgers article is indeed very large, but not atypical when it comes to university articles- the mother article for Rutgers is shorter than that for the University of Florida and Arizona State University , both of which are smaller in terms of enrollment.  Even if you look at GA or FA only, Columbia University and Pomona College are less than half the population of Rutgers and have much larger articles.  This isn't to imply that they should be cut down either- they are fantastic articles as is and I only bring them up to demonstrate that universities can and benefit from having large articles.  HadesTTW (he/him • talk ) 23:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now.  WP:NEVENT does not state that events must act as a precedent or catalyst for something else , it just says that events are commonly considered notable if they do.  The fact that this is the first strike in the school's history is covered by quite a few sources including CNN , the NY Times (which admittedly is a bit more local), USA Today , etc.  This happened after a year of bargaining failed to reach a conclusion, so I do not think WP:NOTNEWS applies here either - the lead-up to the strike is quite significant.  WP:SUSTAINED says that Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability , but since the strike has started just recently and has attracted a large amount of comprehensive news coverage, it does meet the WP:GNG .  I don't think we are in a position to assess whether the coverage is sustained just yet, however.  – Epicgenius ( talk ) 22:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep no valid rationale for deletion provided.   In particular, demanding it must demonstrate lasting significance beyond the time and place that it occurred is generally impossible for contemporaneous events, many of which have coverage.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 18:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , even though I understand this is a historic strike to the university (and the first in its history), it is without any doubt that while I absolutely agree on the fact that while we can improve the article, I feel the rationale given to delete this wiki is not justifiable.  I also have to agree with many of the points that were given, especially with the extensive news coverage which has made it notable.  I do think we can look into deeper analyses on what we can improve, especially to how the unions ended up to striking and the lead up.  Remember, there were under negotiations for a long time.  However, I feel it is possible we should keep on helping out making it more better down the road.  20chances ( talk ) 03:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Considering it has been widely reported on across the United States ( WP:DEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE ) and involves such a large number of people, this strike definitely has great significance.  As another has already mentioned, WP:NEVENT merely says Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else and, in fact, specifically says This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable .  It is also far too soon to say that the article is not high quality enough to keep.  There has been little time for it to be edited yet.  Bryce Springfield ( talk ) 06:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait, leaning Keep - per reasons mentioned above.  Ayyydoc ( talk ) 13:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral Numerous reactions and references (58) but I haven’t heard about this on Long Island, so I don’t know if it actually meets notability guidelines outside NJ.  98.116.131.119 ( talk ) 18:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is just anecdotal, but I've been hearing about this from within NYC.  Not sure if LI and NYC share a television market, though.  – Epicgenius ( talk ) 22:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I co-sign Epicgenius' point - it's been spoken about here in the city.  Ayyydoc ( talk ) 23:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is national news and you can find numerous instances of this being reported or categorized as such .  In addition, many of these articles describe the strike as "historic" or "unprecedented" for US higher education.  I can tell you from my own anecdote that people in my community in Florida were talking about it, especially educators--that might not be all that useful compared to what media actually says (which I just linked to), but I'm just trying to fully illustrate my perspective. Bryce Springfield ( talk ) 06:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now. Although I think NOTNEWS does not apply here, it's too soon to realize if there had been a "lasting significance beyond the time and place."  Also, the event is a historical one making it highly notable. -- M h hossein talk 05:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Notable.  Wjfox2005 ( talk ) 12:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Walt Yoder.  It's premature to evaluate whether the nom's charges are true.  L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 14:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sourcing here demonstrating broad coverage in reliable and verifiable sources demonstrates notability.  Alansohn ( talk ) 14:16, 19 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep