Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Ashland

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 no consensus. There does appear to be a consensus to keep these, but there's also a number of comments that mention redirecting and merging, apart from the delete votes. Given this and the fact these two probably shouldn't have been bundled together, closing as No Consensus. Black Kite (t) 01:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Also nominating Occupy Eugene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOTNEWS, there is nothing notable about this compared to the hundereds of other "Occupy" protest. If it doesn't have national or at least regional news and only has local news, it isn't notable enough for a page. CTJF83 09:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No major national media coverage. Ashland has a population of 20,000, Eugene has 156,000; these can barely be called "major cities," even, so there's absolutely no justification for the existence of these articles. A merge to a main "occupy" movement page could be a good idea. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Occupy Eugene, though I am indifferent about Occupy Ashland. I believe the Eugene article could be expanded and I intend to do so when I have the time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to coverage in multiple reliable sources and ongoing relevance of subject. At worst, we would redirect, but no pressing need to delete. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both - The cycle is predictable... There is a news event, someone creates a page, someone else nominates the page for deletion on the basis that Wikipedia is Not News. Well, yeah, that's true. The thing is that some of these events are notable in Wikipedia terms, the information from some of them needs to be merged into larger articles, and some of them are not notable at all. The problem is, if things are deleted now the information will be lost, making it unlikely that the "larger compilation pages" will be as good as they might be. Why the rush to delete? There should be none... Keep for now, separate the sheep from the goats at a later date, after the termination of these events.

That said, I'm from Oregon and have a pretty good notion how this should ultimately shake out. Occupy Portland is 100% clearly and obviously notable. There's (another) large Oregonian editorial about it today. That's a free standing article. Occupy Ashland, Occupy Eugene, Occupy Salem, and presumably matter on Occupy Bend and Occupy Corvallis, should it emerge, should be merged into a piece called something like 2011 Occupy Oregon protests. Each of those individual names should be converted to redirects to one piece which coherently ties the story together. That piece isn't ready to write yet. For now: cool the deletionist jets; close as No Consensus and things will fall into place at the appropriate juncture in the not too distant future. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Oregon would be a good idea. I just don't see why these 2 and Occupy Salem are notable in anyway from the hundreds of other protests that receive no national news coverage. It would be ridiculous to have 100s of "Occupy" articles. CTJF83 19:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ridiculous to have hundreds of Star Trek related articles? I didn't think that was the way WP notability worked, by some arbitrary yardstick of how many articles a topic should have.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor comparison. CTJF83 23:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? Q (Star Trek) has pages full of in-universe content with three references total (one of which is independent of the topic). If that was the protest article that had paragraphs of content with no citations, it would be removed outright. Then the page would be deleted for original research and not being notable. — Moe ε 05:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per GNG and Carrite above. Undoubtedly there will be some restructuring of the 'Occupy' articles at some point, and Carrite makes some good suggestions, but deletion is clearly not the right approach and this is not the right forum to discuss an over-arching restructuring of the many 'Occupy' articles. It is probably also the wrong time for such a restructuring to take place. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. They're all "Occupy Wall Street", and we're not the news. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both Occupy Ashland and Occupy Eugene - These topics have encyclopedic value, and will into the future. It's premature to delete these articles while occupy events continue to occur, locally, nationally and globally. Also, both topics pass Wikipedia's general notability guideline for topic notability. While Wikipedia is not a newspaper, these topics are suitable for inclusion in a digital encyclopedia, in part due to the lasting, ongoing nature of the Occupy protests, which strongly correlates with the likelihood of enduring notability, and as a reference for these respective topics. Outright deletion of these articles would be overly-hasty and brash in terms of building a comprehensive, digital encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There was an extensive and illustrated Associated Press article on Occupy Ashland on page 2 of my local paper, the Corvallis Gazette-Times today (Oct. 28, 2011). We're 150 miles away or something, this is not local coverage. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: instead of deletion/keeping, the real issue is how to best organize the content on all the different OWS protests, which are clearly a notable event. we don't need to be picking off some and not others in a random unthoughtful manner.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an unthoughtful manner, I nominated the 2 pages with no national coverage. Anything beyond keep/delete is not for this page, that is for a separate discussion. CTJF83 11:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying your nom was without forethought, not at all. Just that the entire project's coverage scheme of the protests should be, ideally, thoughtfully arrived at as a whole. My !vote, then, is to keep content, but not necessarily in these articles.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Occupy Eugene article Although not all of the Occupy protests are notable, I think this one is. The WP:EVENT guideline says that the notability of an event can usually be determined by whether or not it meets WP:GNG, which it does. There is enough coverage in reliable sources non-affiliated with the protest. The Occupy Eugene article currently has a good start of sources, and based on these ones, the protest is notable. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Occupy Ashland had 15 people participating. [1] How many people participated in the other one? Dream Focus 11:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Both topics have national coverage, from the Associated Press (AP) – "Small town version of Occupy Wall Street has its own impact" (Ashland, Oregon) and "Eugene council OKs Occupy park camp until Dec. 15" (Eugene, Oregon). (Note: Refer to the source of the articles, not the publishing newspaper itself; both are AP.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second one is from the local The Register-Guard CTJF83 15:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Eugene Register-Guard is a major newspaper in the state. Eugene is the second biggest city in the state, I think -- it's really close between Eugene, Salem, and Bend, in any event. In any event, the fact that the coverage is local is neither here nor there, so long as it is substantive, independently published material. Carrite (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP, Eugene is the 2nd largest city in the state... Carrite (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The second source commented about above [2] is published by the Associated Press (AP). Reports from the Register Guard are included in the AP report. However, the statement above that "Second one is from the local The Register-Guard" is entirely false. The article is sourced from the Associated Press. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' National coverage makes it notable. They are officially part of the revolution. Dream Focus 15:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As long as the article appears to be objective and balanced and cites reasonable sources, I think it is important to keep it. Wikipedia is providing a valuable service as a central place to which the public and researchers can go to better understand the similarities and differences of the Occupy phenomenon in different locations. I know of no other place to find this kind of information, with the confidence that both supporters and opponents can edit the text to achieve a balance. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Yet another reason why we need an article for Occupy Eugene and perhaps Occupy Ashland is because Wikipedia just might be the only place on the Internet where readers will be able to find neutral coverage of these protests. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - AP national news is clear evidence of notability. --Robbie.lindauer (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Editors first couple of edits as of this message. — Moe ε 23:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an unbiased, clear account of a notable movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunriver1 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Editors first and only edit as of this message. — Moe ε 23:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Extensive references clearly show this is notable. Jfricker (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It has received AP coverage as a town of 20,000. An AP article which focused on the importance of small town occupations and how rural spread of the occupy movement has changed the face of the movement in important ways which go unnoticed by focusing only on large cities. It would be ironic if it was deleted because it is a small town (i.e. its not Portland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmeryKWay (talk • contribs) 18:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Editors first and only edit as of this message. — Moe ε 23:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The AP argument is redundant.. The AP covers everything. There is absolutely nothing significant about this page. Oregon has more occupy articles on here then any other state and is near the bottom in terms of population. These movements, other than the Portland one, are not more significant than other movements that don't even have a page. Ashland?? I mean come one seriously?? Next there will be an Occupy Maupin page. This is really unnecessary and only applies to a insignificant amount of Wiki readers. Waste of space. Jakobees (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Near the bottom? Oregon has more population than a dozen states. Just sayin' Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Occupy Eugene. This article seems to be off to a decent start. I'd say give it a couple months and see where it is. The Occupy Ashland article seem a bit more lacking, but I would mind leaving it for a little while either. Kaldari (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Another nationally-published article, from AP (link to The Oregonians reprint here), for Occupy Ashland:
  

• Associated Press (November 2, 2011)."Occupy roundup: Ashland group votes to cut back; Occupy Seattle march on Chase CEO." The Oregonian.
  

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep: Ashland and Eugene should not have been AFDed together; they have much different circumstances. Eugene should be keep, and another AFD started that is only Ashland Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:23, 6 November 2011 (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.