This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
It seems to pass NEVENT and given it occurred less than 24-hours ago, the 10-year test can’t be proven nor really thought of. I would say reassess in a week. As a note, the vandalism is still getting a ton of media attention, with [1][2][3][4][5][6] all published within the last hour (of this message). So check-back in a week. I am going to remove the notability tag for now, given the large-scale media coverage, every part of NEVENT is proven and obvious passes. Only LASTING isn’t clear, due to how recent it is. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree that it likely does not meet the criteria for a notable event at the moment unless enduring significance and depth can be shown. I think this can be easily brought up at the main article, in the newly created section. I was about to nominate for XFD, but glad I checked the talk page for a discussion. I will wait a week. I worry about reaction cruft in the meantime. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.06:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)]Reply
The paint's been cleaned off already. All claims of 'damage' in our articles (not just this one, but Stonehenge and Just Stop Oil too) were premature. I've nominated this article for deletion. Bluntly, it's tabloid scaremongering. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Lets keep it for now and see how much coverage this act of vandalism receives in the next week. I think it's premature to delete it immediately. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Classicwiki My opinion is don't delete, but Vandalism of Stonehenge sounds like a general name, but we are only talking about this specific case of vandalism. I don't know if Stonehenge has been vandalized before, but seems possible, but also vandalism is a sort of modern term. Alexysun (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It definitely has been vandalised before, but at the moment I'm not at all convinced that there's enough material on that for an article separate from the main Stonehenge article. But if you are arguing against deletion, please do go to the discussion page for deletion (linked at the top of the article page) and have your say. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alexysun, the article features 24 refs in total. 13 (54%) are from the years 1992-2023. Twelve of these old refs. include the word vandalism. One of them does not include this particular word, but does state that until the 17th century, Stonehenge stones would disappear from time to time to be used in construction sites, including bridges and houses. I hope we all can agree that even in the year 1601, taking 4,500 year-old archeological monuments to build a home does constitute vandalism. XavierItzm (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
