Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy movement in the United States

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 keep. A merge discussion should be continued on the article's talk page. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy movement in the United States

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

There is already a large Occupy Wall St Page, a huge collection of different occupy city articles, an Occupy movement in North America article and an Occupy movement article. Information from here need only be repeated in the last one I mentioned. I move that this should be deleted per overcategorization. (See Wikipedia:Overcategorization) ProfNax (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Occupy movement protest locations--Nowa (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak Keep The "occupy" articles are headed into a mess of overlaps, but by it's title this is high level and broad enough to achieve wp:notability, and this seems like a good title for the broadest article on the topic. I don't think that AFD's is the place/tool to try to organize that mess. North8000 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep The Occupy Wall Street is already too large to add more information. The Occupy movement article is for world-wide movements. If or as the movement continues to grow this article will become more important. I think it's too soon to make a decision to delete this article. Gandydancer (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – The "United States" link in the navigation bar for the Occupy movements links to this article. The larger, global list article is very long. It appears that Occupy movement in North America will likely be deleted, per the AfD discussion occurring for that article. Therefore, it makes sense to retain this list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – ~~Changing the title of this article to List of Occupy Protests in the United States would conform to the article's current formatting.~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge – Changing my !vote to Merge to the more comprehensive List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the article to be more than a list and we are already seeing some prose added so it may be predominantly a list in the short term.. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are running into the problem at the OWS article in that happenings and crimes that are taking place at other sites are being entered at that site. Perhaps in time that article should be devoted to NYC and other information be placed in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Wikipedia:Overcategorization is about categorisation of articles not the creation of them. The nominator may be refering to WP:CFORK -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Occupy movement in the United States is a notable topic and there is sufficient material for it. The other articles mentioned by the nominator cannot be used for all the of the information that is applicable to this particular topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the occutards are as notable as they are annoying and entertaining.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain against personal attacks. This is a discussion about keeping article content, not a place for you to make snarky remarks. — Moe ε 11:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. This article does nothing that List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States doesn't already do and the article i linked has over 300 references, the same templates, same links, same photos. — Moe ε 15:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said "I created the article to be more than a list and we are already seeing some prose added so it may be predominantly a list in the short term." -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however as of this writing we have three articles on Wikipedia with the same information repeated. Prose and a list should be added to one page, not spread over three, tripling the work of updating pages for everything. — Moe ε

Comment - Another idea regarding changing this article's title to "List of Occupy Protests in the United States" is that the article would serve users functionally as a list and index of articles already in Wikipedia. Rather than merging all of the separate U.S. occupy articles to this article, if that's the eventual intention, which would make this article very long, change the title and use this as a functional list of links to them. There's already a subsection in the Occupy movement article devoted to the United States here: Occupy movement – United States, which would basically make this article a duplicate of that article and section. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea is to merge to the more comprehensive list article I wasn't aware of before, until checking out links posted by other users in this discussion: List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this one should be kept in favor of the North America list, since "North America" is way too broad and there aren't any occupy movements outside the U.S. save the two in Canada. -waywardhorizons (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addendum If this article is kept, I strongly suggest a merge with List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States as well... and then a shortening of that article's title because it is way too long, man. -waywardhorizons (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Regarding User:Waywardhorizons !vote above: Note that there are now four articles about Canadian Occupy protests in Wikipedia:

—Occupy Canada • Occupy Regina • Occupy Toronto • Occupy Windsor Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh snap, you're right. Actually, there are several occupy movements in Canada right now. My mistake. -waywardhorizons (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with a category. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All these AfD nominations for the Occupy articles positively reek of petty politics and POV-pushing. Deterence ^Talk 11:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. This article has almost no content, despite the fact that it has been created two weeks ago. In fact, it has less content than its sub-section on Occupy movement, and much less content if you consider that the chronology of that article is entirely about the U.S. movement. This split is completely redundant. Jim Sukwutput 14:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added some content to the Occupy movement article and they were moved by some user to here, thus inadvertently making me one of the main contributors to this article. I still insist that we merge the content into the Occupy movement article (or any other suitable article). There is simply no reason for its existence when it has less content than the section it's supposed to originate from. Jim Sukwutput 06:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obvious break out article from Occupy movement which more than meets GNG.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a news service. Wikipedia has, through its ITN/C debates, consistently decided that Occupy is not notable enough for the front page. This is a fork that is used as a de facto blog. Wiki is not a blog hosting service. There is no encylopedic purpose served. doktorb _words^deeds 16:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could gamble my life's worth that you would support deleting the Occupy articles and my money will always be 100% safe. Your personal animosity towards everything Occupy is really starting to test WP:AGF. Deterence ^Talk

Reply I have supported the deletion of just two Occupy articles. I have not supported recent nominations for Occupy articles in ITN/C. I cannot see how my stance is testing WP:AFD, whatever point you are making is unclear. My reasons for deleting are within the rules expected of AfD - I am not breaking the rules insofar as IDONTLIKEIT is concerned. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a primary source of information, a blog or a news service. I contend that this Occupy article breaks these rules and should be deleted. doktorb _words^deeds 21:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know damn well that the Occupy movement is notable. Your opposition to all things Occupy in Wikipedia couldn't be more obviously motivated by petty personal politics if you were wearing a Dick Cheney tie. Deterence ^Talk 21:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the personal insult in this reply, I can offer no other input into this specific discussion. I will, of course, continue to discuss the issue elsewhere. doktorb _words^deeds 21:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Deterence has been indefinitely banned for personal attacking other users. Jim Sukwutput 17:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong & Obvious Keep-- there's just too much info to cover it all on the global page. For that matter, there's too much info to cover it all just on the US page. --Tangledorange (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see all the "info" you're referring to. The current article has less content than its subsection in the global page. Jim Sukwutput 17:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lack of info on a notable topic is not a reason for deletion. The fact that the global page has more info than the sibling article can be fixed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tangledorange above. There is too much material for a national article, it has to be done by city and then have first a national list List of Occupy movement protest locations, and then a List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. So you have Occupy movement, then the list of nations, then the list of cities in each nation, then the city articles. There is nothing special for a national article to cover. B^e——C_ritical 00:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is precisely because there are so many articles on state-specific protests that an overview article is needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not persuaded of the overcategorisation argument. Global>national>city seems like a perfectly sensible split. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not hurting anything, and the movement is still active. There may be more contributions. When it settles down, this can be re-visited. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an argument. Things can't feel pain anyway. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There may be some history worth saving, though obviously it is not a very strong search term. I was going to close this as a merge, but really, I don't want to touch this Occupy stuff with a ten-foot pole: it stinks to high heaven and the subject is way too politicized. I actually want to congratulate NorthAmerica on their reasonable commentary here, and I hope that at some point everyone has moved along, away from Wikipedia, and we can merge ALL the individual articles into one big one. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.