Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Davis

Occupy Davis

Occupy Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Delete. While I can find an overwhelming amount of non-trivial, third party coverage for Occupy UC Davis, I cannot say the same for this subject. I'm afraid some editors/viewers are conflating the two. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Merge into larger Occupy articles. Recreate again if neeeded, but it can't exist on its own right now. Beyond495 (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Unsure. It's important people not conflate or confuse the university movement with the city movement-- I'm told they're two entirely different groups of people with different circumstances, different backgrounds, and different aims, and most importantly, different websites & social media accounts. But of course, the two movements do have huge overlap.

My instinct is that confusion of the two is sufficiently common that we should make separate article with cross-links at the tops. In this sense, the primary fact that needs to be documents about OccupyDavis is merely its unique existence apart from the University movement where the police violence occurred. That's a very humble fact to document, but perhaps the best way to document it is to keep this article on as a stub that may grow.

That's my thinking at least-- OccupyDavis isn't especially notable, but enough note has been taken that it's certain not non-notable. In my eyes, much of the OccupyDavis notability comes from its mere from its superficial similarities to OccupyUCDavis (and of course, its repeated conflation with OccupyUCDavis is cause for us to highlight it).

That said, it's a pretty lousy read, admittedly. In my eyes, an article on OccupyDavis need only mention its existence, comment on its distinction from the university movement, have a link to a reference and a link to their website and I'd call it good. In writing this little stub, I tried to add a little more detail than that-- but its pretty barebones-with no one having yet updated it, (and indeed, I have no special eagerness to update it).

Perhaps reducing it to just a disambiguation page? I worry because #Redirect conveys "equals" to our readers-- they ask for X, we redirect them to Y, and they unconsciously infer that X = Y. (even though we writers know a redirect means something far more subtle that this, we are in the minority).

So, my response is just do whatever you think is best, but try to avoid a redirect. Consider "OccupyDavis" as a 'minorly notable person with the same name as a highly notable person' -- so, Bill Murray (footballer) and Bill Murray. An early 20th century football player isn't especially notable, but there's a tiny something to be said in keeping a stub on him around-- if only to avoid confusion and conflation.

) Maybe. I defer to your wisdom on how to serve our readers best. --Tangledorange (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)