- 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. !Votes are pretty much split down the middle. The "keep" side has presented sources, and there's nothing overwhelmingly strong from the delete side that suggests the article should be deleted in the face of them. Mkativerata (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Occupy_Windsor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Flagged for non-notability and not saved. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a primary source for information, nor a blog, all of which is threatened by this article. No evidence that this element of the protest is notable on its own, never mind part of the larger "movement". Wikipedia community has decided that Occupy "movement" is not notable enough for front page inclusion. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator, and redirect to Occupy Canada. Joefridayquaker (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, you're voting to Merge. Deterence Talk 11:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive my ignorant terminology. I mean delete the contents and redirect the page. Simply put, Redirect. Joefridayquaker (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Occupy Canada. The content is largely already reflected in the destination article, but there's no reason to avoid a redirect (they're cheap!). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Despite being small, (which can be fixed with time), this article provides informative content on one of the elements of the Occupy saga, and as such it has encyclopaedic value to anyone doing research into the Occupy movement. Further more, I am not the least bit surprised to see that Doktorbuk made this AfD nomination. He is fanatically obsessed with removing all traces of the Occupy movement from Wikipedia and, as recent discussions with him have demonstrated, there is absolutely no reasoning with him whatsoever. Deterence Talk 11:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User:Deterence has been indefinitely blocked, in part for the abusive tone towards particular users, as demonstrated by the above comment. JimSukwutput 17:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 18. Snotbot t • c » 19:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. Neutralitytalk 19:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are numerous reliable sources covering this. The article itself is weak; it should be expanded and rewritten from a NPOV. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per availability of numerous reliable sources. See Google news search results for some of them. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no need to have articles for every single centre where an Occupy protest took place. PKT(alk) 19:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Each protest is unique, with unique events. Why just "delete" the information? See also WP:ATD. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can be easily covered in a list article. Most of the news items cited above do not contain anything worthy of long-term inclusion. Separating this article from the rest of the occupy movement in Canada simply makes it difficult for readers to obtain information. JimSukwutput 17:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The size an article on it's own has never been grounds for deletion. Stick a stub tag on it and let interested parties expand it. As for "Wikipedia community has decided that Occupy "movement" is not notable enough for front page inclusion", this isn't the front page, it's a stub, and must be handled differently. Spence Powell never made the front page, but I don't see people trying to delete his page. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Everything important can be already found in Occupy Canada and what's left seems to violate WP:NOTWHOSWHO - so far the importance of these people have not been shown. Zangar (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and leave a redirect behind to Occupy Canada. There's nothing in this article worth keeping, and it's adequately described in the Occupy Canada article already. Every individual city's occupy movement isn't automatically notable- this one happens to not be notable, even while others are.--Slon02 (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - We may or may not like the Occupy movement. I'm a critic myself. That's neither here nor there. We may wish that the myriad of small articles were merged into fewer big articles. That's probably in the cards somewhere down the road, but it's early days yet. There will be books and scholarly articles written and that will influence the way that we look at this social phenomenon. That's also neither here nor there. The question is whether this is an event with multiple instances of significant, independently published coverage. Footnotes are showing in the piece which indicate that this is a topic which does indeed pass the General Notability Guideline. Carrite (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article is currently incomplete. I've added more references to the article. Events continue to occur, more press coverage in reliable sources is written and published, GNG is further surpassed. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete /merge/ redirect to Occupy Canada. Has not the wp:notability, scale or material for stand-alone. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources. Adding the references currently in the article here, as many of delete !votes seem to be based upon opinion of the protest and the stub size of the article, (which is incomplete at this time), rather than topic notability itself per notability guidelines. Notice how per these references, the article can be easily expanded.
- “An inside look at Occupy Windsor”, CBC News, November 11, 2011
- "Occupy Windsor stands united with Detroit demonstrators". CBC News. October 24, 2011. Retrieved November 20, 2011.
{{cite web}}: External link in|publisher= - Chen, Dalson (October 27, 2011). "Occupy Windsor protesters staying put". The Windsor Star. Retrieved November 20, 2011.
{{cite web}}: External link in|publisher=|publisher=(help) - Jarvis, Anne (November 16, 2011). "Jarvis: Occupiers seeking equality". The Windsor Star. Retrieved November 25, 2011.
{{cite web}}: External link in|publisher=|publisher=(help) - "City dampens Occupy Windsor camp". CBC News. November 17, 2011. Retrieved November 20, 2011.
{{cite web}}: External link in|publisher= - Battegello, Dave (November 18, 2011). "Occupy Windsor continues despite sprinklers". The Windsor Star. Retrieved November 25, 2011.
{{cite web}}: External link in|publisher=|publisher=(help) - "Occupy Windsor not a concern for mayor, police". CBC News. November 23, 2011. Retrieved November 25, 2011.
{{cite web}}: External link in|publisher=
- Keep - Does indeed appear to meet WP:GNG based on coverage, including that linked above. --DGaw (talk) 04:35, 26 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.