Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Ashland (3rd nomination)

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. I'm going to close this as no consensus (though with a plurality, but not a consensus for keep). I'm going to add the provision that it should not be renominated for deletion before March 2013. I think we will better equipped to evaluate this article and form a consensus after a sufficient amount of time has passed, a year seems like a suitable period in this instance. henrik•talk 19:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Ashland

AfDs for this article:
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)

The first two deletes were closed as essentially no consensus (the second was withdrawn because people complained it was too soon, even though NC's can be immediately renommed). Since the last nomination, there has been an emerging consensus that small-scale Occupy protests like this one are non-notable. The "wait and see" mentality hasn't given any additional reason to keep; most of the references are news articles. That's not enough to keep; per WP:NOTNEWS. This should be deleted or redirected to List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. WP:PRESERVE really isn't applicable here, since there's hardly any content to preserve. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to main Occupy list, per WP:EVENT and WP:GEOSCOPE--this individual "Occupy" does not have enduring historical significance or a lasting historic effect, and no national or international impact. It has primarily been reported upon only in regional media and the AP article is just using Ashland as an example of a small town, not saying the individual protest is significant--the AP article should certainly be used in the main Occupy article to show how the movement spread to small towns (albeit uber-liberal artsy ones). The info could possibly be a footnote in the history section of Ashland, Oregon, but as the article currently stands I don't see that it had much of a significant or lasting impact there either. Delete without bias for recreation if for some reason the Ashland movement becomes as newsworthy as, say, Portland's. Another option might be to make an article that summarizes all the Oregon events, perhaps at 2011 Occupy Oregon protests per Carrite in one of the previous AfDs. Valfontis (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, As of February 2012, Occupy Ashland continues to engage in organized events and actions.
  1. ^ "Occupy Ashland". Occupy Ashland. Retrieved February 23, 2012.
  2. ^ "Occupy Ashland: Actions and News". Webspiritcommunity.com. January 10, 2012. Retrieved February 23, 2012.
—Northamerica1000(talk) 00:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those don't appear to be reliable sources... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as disruptive renomination of previously kept material suitably demonstrated to have received sufficient coverage for our purposes. Nominator is simply disrespecting past consensuses rather than moving on. Beating a dead horse to the xtreme! And hey, it is far more useful for the world to have three discussions of people saying keep, keep, keep than an article that is well sourced? Backwards logic for the win! --WR Reader (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User is the subject of a SPI discussion Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I seem to recall saying above that there wasn't a consensus in the first two discussions. Furthermore, sufficient time has passed so they can be renominated again even if there wasn't one Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you provide no policy basis for keep, nor a refutation of the extensive deletion rationale. You mostly just attack me for nominating it in the first place Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to refute, because no actual reason exists for deletion. Newsworthy material of historic importance and interest to our readers is worth preserving. Why on earth would you possibly think removing this content makes sense, but keeping three discussions about that content public is somehow better for civilization? WTF!? --WR Reader (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is the subject of a SPI discussion --WR Reader (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC) SPI discussion speedily closedPurplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, whether or not AfD discussions should be kept for posterity is a wholly different matter, but as for whether this should be kept or not, we have two very important guidelines, WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. If an article is something that falls under NOT (of which WP:NOTNEWS is part), it can be deleted. My deletion rationale is that this article is something that falls under NOT. I suggest you familiarize yourself with NOTE and NOT before continuing to participate in deletion discussions. That's all I'll say to you Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This topic passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Here are some of the available sources, some of which are comprised of national coverage (Associated Press) and regional coverage (The Oregonian):
—Northamerica1000(talk) 00:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've perfectly proven why it fails WP:NOTNEWS. The deletion rationale is almost wholly based on NOTNEWS; whether it passes GNG or not is irrelevant. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re:The two of you...what about NOT? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WHAT source did you look at and HOW did it make it notable? Which notability guideline applies? I could say "The first reference I looked at made it non-notable" if I wanted to. Without any explanation that doesn't mean much. MisterRichValentine (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is another news article, again reaffirming my continual point that this fails NOTNEWS... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think i'm done with the page. The coverage is significant, from a number of different outlets, and from several regional providers for both all of Oregon, Kentucky, and elsewhere. The coverage extends over a period of several months, it was not just one short news cycle. For these reasons, I believe the article is notable and should be kept. SilverserenC 05:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete KEEP and Merge to proposed main page by state or country - I don't think the article meets the threshold for notability in that there isn't "Significant coverage"...and i base this against the Occupy Wall Street article. And in my looking at the article there appear to be only a handful of authors of the sources. It is surely a notable news story for the moment, but does that make it a notable enough subject for an independent article on Wikipedia. I don't believe so. There are too many Occupy article stubs that have no potential to grow past stub status and this article fails to even have a rating or importance or class. We may want to take in all the stray puppies we find, but eventually we know they have to be taken away and dealt with in one way or another. I would hope we could be humane about how we deal with these stubs but at some pint we are going to have to deal with them and I agree that time may be fast approaching. As stated it does not meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and does not meet notability is not temporary. This just not worth keeping in my view.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note the lack of rating or importance or class was a result of my deleting or changing same from the banners when the article was originally redirected, as seen in the talk page history. I'll restore the ratings. I don't think the lack of ratings, which is a WikiProject thing, is a valid reason for deletion, though I !voted delete myself. Valfontis (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not the whole point but yes, was a part of the point. Just illustrative of the point that it isn't much of an article and is unlikely to expand. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article has been expanded a great deal today. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but then that is also a kind of point as well. If this is expanded...then maybe it isn't going to be a historically notable subject over time. while I can certainly appreciate your feeling and desire to save the article I also remeber that you helped save my only Occupy article...Occupy Sacramento and it is even smaller than this one, and has not been expanded. I know it isn't going to be something everyone agrees on....but it is time to start merging and i think we as editors need to start making these tough decisions.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One last point and I won't make further comment so others can weigh in, but...I belive we as editors need to step up and help clean up the encyclopedia that may have been cluttered by early enthusiasim that simply didn't translate into fully realized articles. It is our resposibility that the articles are here and we need to weed out what has little to no chance of true expansion.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mad, you can't !vote "Keep and Merge". The outcomes are mutually exclusive. If you want content merged to another article, you vote merge. If you want it to stay in the current form Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read that again sir. I vote keep for this article and the suggestion of merge is a proposal for after the AFD ends. I also suggest you stop campaigning and allow the community to make this decision. Thanks and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does telling you that you can't vote keep and merge amount to campaigning? It doesn't! You've rolled a short-term move and a long-term one into one vote. You can't vote both ways, either vote short-term or long-term. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever dude. I did it and there is nothing you can do to stop such. I made my choice to Keep and will suggest the article be merged after the AFD closes. Please stop trying to overpower the discussion. You have made your point now please back away slowy from the carcass. Have a nice day.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course one can !vote "keep and merge". In fact, if any content is merged then the article history must be kept for attribution purposes, so merging requires keeping. I think you must be confusing this case with "merge and delete", which is an excluded combination. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the much quoted NOTNEWS has long been depreciated as in the past it has often been misapplied. The article meets GNG, so the only question left is if there is a rule to exclude. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER for example excludes "routine" events. The occupy events so far are not "routine" so that exclusion does not apply. Agathoclea (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are run-of-the-mill, however. Hundreds of cities have had Occupy protests, many at least as big and at least as covered as this one. That doesn't mean we need articles on all of them. I'm also gonna pull the recency card here...similar protests in the past with similar attendance and coverage either would never have articles created, or would have them created and deleted or merged Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Run-of-the-mill is a personal opinion that has attracted much more opposition than support. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTNEWSPAPER is pretty irrelevant when GNG does not apply as it is a special rule to exclude otherwise notable content. GNG qed! As far as why NOTNEWSPAPER does not apply has also been explained. But maybe you need spelling it out. A routine event happens everywhere like the remembrance day parade - every year - every town and always gets newspaper coverage explaining which bigwig laid what size wreath. The comparativly handful occupy protests don't get the matter of fact reporting. Agathoclea (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is not a shred of evidence that anything will last past next week, but you comment about the number of people was wildly innaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs)
His general point is that it never was a large protest, and is a very small one in its ongoing nature Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Size is actually one of the more irrelevant categories in regards to a subject. All that matter is the coverage of it, its "notability" and how extensive this coverage is. The mistaken opinion that an event could end also has nothing to do with the current notability and coverage of the subject. SilverserenC 21:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean current as in breaking news or anything like that, I mean it in terms of "up to this point". All of the coverage up to this point establishes notability, and speculation about whether the protest will continue next week is irrelevant. SilverserenC 23:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Multiple, substantial, independent, published reliable sources. Passes GNG, love them or hate them. I still think the ideal ultimate structure will be state-by-state treatments of the Occupy movement; deleting this information now won't help that cause. Carrite (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Considering it, I would compare the Occupy movement articles to those of the Protests against the Iraq War in 2003. While that movement saw widespread and sustained presence in many major cities, we've generally only kept individual articles of those with independently notable historic value by themselves over the long term -- we didn't keep articles on minor protests simply because they were part of that overall movement. Some of the larger Occupy movements have achieved unquestionable notability, but as far as this individual movement, I fail to see how anything about the protest in Ashland has distinguished itself enough to deserve an article of its own, and I fail to see how it will have any lasting value considering the size of the movement and the lack of anything other than local news sources and a pair of mid-length AP stories to establish notability, and only as an occasional news piece. I would consider keeping a few sentences for a merge elsewhere, maybe about how the goals specific to this individual movement differed from those of the others. —Ed!(talk) 07:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • relisting comment: In the past few months, we have nominated this article for deletion three times. There seems to be a majority who want to keep the article, but not a real consensus. I note that all arguments to keep are that it meets the general notability guideline, and some argue that there is enough sustained coverage to meet WP:Notability (events). Those who argue to delete claim it fails that guideline. I could just have closed as no consensus here, but that would likely put us in the same spot again in a month or two (and who knows, consensus might be clearer then, though I personally doubt it.) I think what we should be asking ourselves are two questions: the first being: is this an event for which the notability guidelines of events are applicable? Or is this something else (an organisation possibly?). The second question is, does this meet the relevant notability guideline, either that for events or for organisations. Another possiblity is that we got ourselves a cornercase where neither guideline really applies, and we need to wing it as we go. The added overhead of more discussion is in this case worth the distinction between no consensus and keep, or something that could even swing to delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a number of news sources with new info that's been in the past three or so months, showing that Occupy Ashland has still been getting news and continues to do so. SilverserenC 18:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Seren (and Hoekstra): You're ignoring the recency, NOTNEWS and ONEEVENT problems. There's more than just GNG; something barely passing GNG doesn't mean an automatic keep Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS is a soft redirect to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER which deals specifically with the notability guideline for events which I discuss in the relist comment above. WP:ONEEVENT is deals with biographies for people notable for one event which has no relevance at all at this discussion. So yes, I am ignoring WP:ONEEVENT, because it doesn't apply to this discussion, and no, I'm not ignoring WP:NOTNEWS, in fact, I specifically address that discussion should focus on if it applies, and if it does, if it is met. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You have a strange definition of what constitutes one event. First off, WP:ONEEVENT applies to people that were involved in an event and this article isn't about a person, so that has no application here. Secondly, WP:NOTNEWS generally applies to breaking news or routine coverage. This article is neither of those. It's a continuous protest action that has been taking place since October and the coverage in a number of different outlets in significant depth is not routine coverage. SilverserenC 21:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's your opinion. You still are failing to address the recency argument (how do we know if it will stand the test of time?); and the fact that a story pops up in the news now and again sounds pretty much like routine coverage to me Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What recency argument? This protest has been going on for five months. Any assumption on whether it will "stand the test of time" is just crystal-balling and has nothing to do with the current coverage of the subject. SilverserenC 02:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI can't speak for the other small locations but our state's group is very much alive and well. They were tenting till about two weeks ago and continue to hold meetings and plan events. I would assume this to be true of the other sites that are much larger and have an article here. Gandydancer (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- There's just too much here, over too long of a period of coverage, to be simply dismissed as a news story. The question of whether or not it should be a standalone article can be of course handled at the article's talk page. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant coverage from many sources over a long time. The article has been improved several times since the last AFDs, and shows promise of future improvement. The news articles provided are valid references, and it's common use of such articles to demonstrate notability on Wikipedia.--StvFetterly(Edits) 18:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the two gentlemen who commented directly above me. I find their arguments persuasive. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm glad somebody is starting to clean up the mess of 'Occupy' related articles that started springing up a few months ago. This article (and many similar articles) should be deleted for the following reasons:
1. There are no sources for this Occupy movement that show that it has enduring historical significance or a significant lasting effect, nor are there sources that show widespread (national or international) impact - These are the two basic criteria for WP:EVENT
2. Between Google news, books, and scholar the only place that this gets hits is news. The news results are all local. If you think books and scholar wouldn't have hts on a protest, then try book-ing or scholar-ing a protest that had lasting historical significance (Tiananmen Square maybe?). People mention protests in books and papers when they are significant.
3. The local news coverage makes it quite clear that this is a run-of-the-mill Occupy protest. There should not be a page for every Occupy protest location, as it is not notable. Take, for example, the article on the 1980 Olympics Soviet vs. United States men's hockey game. There is quite an article on that game, as it had a significant, lasting effect. Notice there is no article on United States vs. Sweden, United States vs. Norway, United States vs. Romania, West Germany vs. Norway, Norway vs. Sweden, etc.. Every match does not meet the requirements to get it's own article, just like every protest under the blanket of a large, international protest does not get its own article
4. Fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE per items 1-3
5. Falls under WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:NTEMP, WP:NEWSBRIEF per items 1-3. People voting 'keep' have just been saying things like "this is significant, look at all these news stories," but are conveniently ignoring Wikipedia's policies and providing little to no comment on how the policies that the delete-voters are citing.
These things cannot be ignored. This article does not meet notability criteria and should be deleted. MisterRichValentine (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. If that was true, then every event that ever happened that wasn't national or larger wouldn't have an article and that is clearly not true. The Ashland protest has had a significant regional effect, the specifics of how are already presented in the article.
2. Again, this would be saying that all articles that don't have a Google Books or Scholar hit are non-notable, this is very clearly not true. And the news sources are both local, regional, and statewide, along with a fair amount of national/international coverage though things like the Associated Press.
3. An Wikipedia:Other stuff does not exist argument is just as bad as a Other stuff exists argument, when not backed up any meaningful amount. For your example, there's no indication that the other hockey games in that year are non-notable, just that no one's bothered to make an article on them yet and just because the Soviet one got more coverage than the rest doesn't mean the rest are non-notable. The notability of this Occupy location is clearly notable, because of the wide range of coverage from a large number of different outlets at all different layers of size.
4. Clearly it does not, especially not GNG or CONTINUED COVERAGE, as there is significant news coverage that has been as recent as March 4th, continuing since the start of the protest in October.
5. Listing a bunch of policy links is essentially just bashing the discussion with an argument that isn't being filled in with an actual argument. All of the stuff you linked is refuted by the coverage itself. SilverserenC 05:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your counterargument to 1 is very clearly not the case. The content of the article is entirely focused on actions the protestors have taken, and the only impact covered that this specific moment has is an increase in accounts for the local credit union. We can use that as a sentence in another larger piece about the impact of Occupy Wall Street in general. A few news articles do not create notability for this individual event, even with the AP article, since they were clearly using this one movement to illustrate a "typical" Occupy demonstration. The news covers lots of things regularly which do not pass GNG. Trying to say we shouldn't base this decision on the numerous policies in question, in my mind, just proves User:MisterRichValentine's point. —Ed!(talk) 15:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is exactly what we've been talking about. The tools of big oil who keep raising gas prices for no reason want to silence us and minimize coverage of our activities to challenge them, huh? Yet, the protesters are Time's People of the Year!? The ongoing occupy movement has lasting historical significance and the various individual protests have valid research value that warrants their inclusion here. --63.3.19.1 (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)--63.3.19.1 (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:SOAPBOX. We can't keep an article just to demonstrate its political objective. —Ed!(talk) 15:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's to see? We can keep the article, because it is part of a historically consequential movement and is sourced in multiple reliable sources. --63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Occupy Wall Street is historically consequential, but Occupy Ashland is not, even with the multiple sources. There's no individual impact here and, in my mind, no reason to keep it as an independent article. What little relevant detail exists here should be merged to List of global Occupy protest locations. —Ed!(talk) 22:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • There most certainly is individual impact on the people of Ashland and the wider movement. This article demonstrates how far reaching and widespread the scope of the movement is and readers are clearly interested in that reality. It is backed by multiple sources. Really, for the "ultimate encyclopedia", anything backed by multiple sources should have an article. I will never get the logic of those who think it benefits this site or civilization to have an article covering something of relevance to someone red linked, but to in this case it is okay to have three non-redlinked discussions about that same article. Why would we rather cover talking about something's suitability over and over and keep that on the site and in public view, but not the actual article itself, which admittedly is sourced? --63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • In general I favor inclusionism on those grounds too, but I that same logic just does not apply here. There is no impact on the local population stated on the article right now, save one sentence about a local bank seeing more customers. Nothing as-is proves any other kind of quantifiable impact this demonstration has had on its city. —Ed!(talk) 22:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I would think getting 5.6 million people to change their bank account, "more than all transfers in 2010", would be a pretty notable effect. I mean, it was the primary one they were focusing on. SilverserenC 23:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's an unverified number published in one student publication, sourced to an Occupy member who clearly has a COI, making it unreliable and probably impossible to verify. Besides, from the context of the article, the 5.6 million number likely refers to all of the Occupy movement, once again meaning this should be merged with another article on the impact of the greater Occupy movement. —Ed!(talk) 23:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Which is something that can be discussed on the article's talk page. Because it seems that we have moved past saying to outright redlink, the Afd should be closed and any thoughts to merge and redirect can be discussed elsewhere. Cheers! --63.3.19.130 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I disagree. What I said is one detail of this article belongs somewhere else. The rest should be deleted, unless we can come up with some better sources about the impact Occupy Ashland has had on banks, or anything else. —Ed!(talk) 23:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I agree with Ed. Just because the Occupy movement as a whole is notable doesn't mean that every protest location is notable. Just because 5.6 million people switched nationwide doesn't make a much smaller number switching in Ashland notable. And just because something has appeared in a few newspapers doesn't mean we have to have to keep it. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that the delete arguments are much stronger than the Keep ones. The Keep arguments are based on two faulty premises: 1) That GNG trumps all other guidelines, and that anything with coverage has to be kept, and 2) that the OCcupy protests being notable in aggregate makes each individual one notable. By contrast, the delete argument are based on a more broad-based look at policy Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's more of the Keeps saying it meets policy and the Deletes saying that it doesn't meet policy. The subject of the article has received continued coverage for a number of months from a bunch of different news outlets of varying scope. All of us that said keep feel that that meets the notability policy. SilverserenC 01:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just proved my point that you're arguing that GNG trumps everything, and therefore nothing else (like all the stuff Ed and Valentine said) should be considered. GNG does not trump everything else Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is clearly not my or anyone's (except 63.3.19.1) argument. There is far more than just GNG that I argued. Though I will note that the SNGs are considered adjunct to GNG, not over it. And the argument for not meeting the Event SNG is pretty flimsy, considering the continued coverage and coverage in numerous outlets. SilverserenC 04:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Silver seren, among many others. And on a side note, I am frankly disgusted by the way User:Purplebackpack89 is trying to bully every single editor who disagrees with him. Bro, you don't need to reply to EVERY one who says to keep (the overwhelming majority of participants in this discussion and those with the strongest arguments). So, no, you don't kneed to come attacking me next, because the delete votes are just not strong like the keep arguments and I am not going to be persuaded otherwise. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The accusation of bullying is ridiculous. I haven't responded to every editor, nor am I the only editor to comment. It's not an overwhelming majority, nor is it the strongest arguments. I am a bit troubled that half of your contributions on this Wikipedia are keep !votes on AfDs. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am far more troubled by the beating of a dead horse, repeatedly renominating the same previously kept article for deletion, and if you seriously look at how many times you have commented in this Afd, it goes beyond just making a case. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's 100% perfectly acceptable to renom something that's been closed as no consensus. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Nomination admits that there is WP:PRESERVE material, and makes no attempt to refute the case for redirect, so we start without an argument for deletion.  It doesn't take but a quick glance to see what is nominally a delete !vote agreeing that the real !vote is merge.  Article is well-sourced, far exceeding the Balloon boy incident benchmark in satisfying the "over a period of time" criterion in WP:N.  Even a WP:NOT argument here only leads to a loss of notability and merger—there is no credible case to be made for deleting the edit history here, so to close this as "no consensus" would be a fiction, when what we need is that editors take their cases to merge to the talk page of the article instead of adding to the work load at AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG, but moreover, a similar article about something which took place 80 years ago would not be nominated for deletion. This will increasingly be valued as an article on a historical event in Ashland. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is this still open? Seems still too hot-button to escape no consensus close.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:56, 14 March 2012 (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.