Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy San Jose

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is clearly a consensus here that we should cover this topic. As events progress and the impact of this movement becomes more clear there will probably come a time when we discuss merging some of the "occupy" articles (they even had one where I live), but that was not the focus of this debate. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy San Jose

[edit]
Occupy San Jose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disclaimer: I have been working to try and improve this article, but after some consideration I really don't think it's ready for prime time yet. The Occupy SJ effort has yet to really take hold (it's less than 100 people) and not really a "movement" quite yet. Many of the references point to Occupy Wallstreet articles which make no reference to Occupy San Jose at all. Earlier today I removed a bunch of flickr/twitter links and "unofficial" blogs that were not up to snuff for an encyclopedia. So while I have invested some time in it, I just don't think there is enough significance here yet to warrant an article, unlike the recent protests in Rome or some of the other locations which actually have received noteworthy coverage. Delete for now, but without prejudice. ShakerSJC (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Omit Well, perhaps, small is, if not beautiful, worth mention. Over the hill here in Santa cruz there are many folks camped and protesting at the county courthouse near San Lorenzo Park. Not sure what I think of it all, but this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyocoyote (talk • contribs) 04:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Sources already demonstrate notability and there are a ton more which could be added. The article is capable of considerable expansion and a merge to the main "Occupy" protests article is impractical.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirect at best. This is not notable, and we are not the news. A couple of stories don't make for an encyclopedic topic. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It actually astounds me that with a mere 12 hits on Google [5] there is even one single keep vote. I challenge those who suggest this page be kept to cite which articles demonstrate notability. Almost every single article that mentions Occupy San Jose does so in passing. The single WP:LOCAL article which actually covers OSJ beyond that states that there is a grand total of five people in nylon tents. [6] Five. ShakerSJC (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Places of local interest is an essay, not even a guideline let alone a policy. And it covers places, not events. Leaving aside the issues of how one would define 'local'. San Jose on its own has a population of around 1 million, and forms part of metropolitan area with a population of 7.5 million. This is not a little village. Plus it is far too soon to measure the lasting impact of Occupy San Jose. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ShakerSJC has a point. Five. Five. Two plus three or one plus four. Only that? How does this article meet WP:N? It's miniscule, has few participants, no arrests, etc. The Frisco-Jose-Oakland metro area may be big, but with only five tents, do you think this is really notable? HurricaneFan25 12:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, lets also delete Occupy London, because there's only been 8 arrests made so far.RiseRobotRise (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a lot more than five people involved in Occupy San Jose, as is clear from reading the cited sources, many hundreds in fact. The number of people is in any case irrelevant and is not part of the notability policy. An event done by one person can be notable if it has adequate third party coverage, and we have tens of thousands of just such articles. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, yes than hundreds of protesters. But that's nothing compared to the other protests, with tens of thousands, like Boston, and this one has had no arrests. HurricaneFan25 12:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crescent City, California is rather smaller than Los Angeles but they are both notable. Los Angeles also has a vast number of features which Crescent City does not. The notability policy does not require that arrests occurred, that is an arbitrary requirement which you are proposing.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, the article isn't establishing notability. Hundreds of people out of millions. Boston = 10,000, Portland = 10,000. Here? Hundreds. In this case, arrests are an essential part of any "Occupy" article. Boston had 141. This one has none. Compared to other "Occupy" articles, there's really little useful content. Period. HurricaneFan25 13:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try but my point is that current notability is more than established by sources. Lasting notability of any new topic will require time to establish - and can only, in fact, be established through the passage of time - but that does not mean that articles on new topics should not be created. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try? Indeed--there is notability, there is no current as opposed to lasting notability. It is not notable now. Maybe it will be notable in the future. I doubt it, but it's possible. Articles on new topics should be created if those topics are notable, and way too many of these Occupy articles reduce Wikipedia to either a source for news or a billboard. This is an encyclopedia, it's not Facebook. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to encyclopedic nature of the article as confirmed by multiple reliable sources that demonstrate notability of a protest in a major city. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that it isn't encyclopedic, it is about the notability. There's so many different "Occupy" protests at the moment, though compared to others, this one has hundreds of participants while the other protests have tens of thousands. This one has no arrests, while the others have over a hundred arrests. HurricaneFan25 15:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one has sufficient coverage in reliable third-party sources to meet the GNG. For all sorts of reasons some numerically larger protests may not. In time there may well be scope to merge together some or even many of the 'Occupy' articles but deletion of this article is to deny readers information on events which have achieved notability.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I'd like to ask how many of you have actually been to Occupy San Jose? At the last General Assembly, Sunday Nov 16th we had over 250 community members attending. The previous General Assembly, Sunday Nov 9th saw over 350 people. As someone who is helping to organize this group, and the person who created the OSJ article it may seem I am heavily biased. My request to keep the article is based on the fact that over 5000 hours of time have already been put into this movement, it's legitimacy is crystal clear in my opinion. Organizers are meeting daily, new groups are forming daily. There are many articles which support it. There are now over 10 tents, and regularly 15-25 people sleeping there every night. The Facebook group has over 350 members, and the Facebook Community Page has over 4800 people and is growing daily. There have been citations and several arrests, the issue was that it was done in the middle of the night and the media, although alerted did not respond. Burleyc1 (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, that this isn't notable—compared to other "Occupy" protests. Yes, yes, there's lots of people. I just did a Google search, no arrests yet, but Occupy San Jose was facing a possible "arrest". Facebook is not an indicator of the notability of this event, really. Occupy Phoenix faced 46 arrests. San Jose? None. Participants in Occupy Boston? 10,000. This one? 350. HurricaneFan25 17:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Occupy Wall Street per my reasons outlined below that I feel is necessary for a "notable" Occupy article:

Note: This page was created as a result of several AfD's and an ANI thread involving the notability of individual Occupy protests, and is only retained for historical reference for the user.

My views on the notability of individual Occupy Wall Street protests

  • Arrests — I consider Boston notable as it had 141 arrests, and I also consider Phoenix, with 46 arrests (which has yet to get an article), notable. A good number arrests, more than 30, in my opinion makes an "Occupy" protest require an article.
  • Violence — If there is any moderate (shooting, rock-throwing, etc.) violence in the protest, and has a considerable number of arrests or a police reaction, the protest deserves an article.
  • Participants — If the protest has enough combined media coverage and participants, the protest is worthy of an article. However, if there are no arrests, little media coverage, while there are many participants, the protest does not deserve an article.
  • Media coverage — Ample media coverage should be required for an article for any of the protests; however, I wouldn't see this as a requirement, rather as a preferred option. A lot of media coverage most likely means a major protest.
  • Article content — if the article has a considerable amount of individual content, as in an attempted speech by a Congressman — not just the usual "...protest against corporate greed and ____ in ___".
  • Verifiability — All "Occupy" articles should contain verifiable information. All. No exceptions.
  • Social networking sites do not count — At the AfD for Occupy San Jose, a "keep" vote was posted, on several basis, including the number of participants and the number of Facebook group members and likes/fans on a Facebook community page. Facebook doesn't necessarily indicate the participation or support — during the 2010 Congressional elections, several candidates had tons of "likes" but compared to their opponent, with only a few "likes," was far behind in the election.

HurricaneFan25 17:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Hurricanfan, I love you like a brother and I agree with you, but PLEASE don't be shouting from the rooftops with these boxes... Regular font and good arguments are enough, thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the short period of time that these "Occupy" articles have existed, there is no way to determine the broader future significance of these events. At this point in time, the are all significant. If somebody has taken the time to articulate the unique character of any of these individual locations, keep it. Let it develop and grow. If, after a significant time, when our clearer eyes of historical judgement can show that a particular location was insignificant, then nominate it for deletion. At this point in time, you can't pass such a negative, dismissive judgement as all are now getting significant coverage. In wikipedia terms, that establishes notability. Trackinfo (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is so jumbled that I don't know where to start. Of course, there is a way to determine if they're significant, and no, they're not all significant. Why should they be? "Unique character" and all that stuff is not found anywhere in our guidelines, and that's a good thing. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to "let it develop and grow"--since the closest antecedent of "it" is "the unique character of any of these individual locations". You can do that via Facebook. As for the future significance, you could consider waiting for the future to see what that significance is--if there is any for any of these individual locations. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trackinfo's rationale is another eloquent plea for deletion. Newspapers have to report about this and have to do that now. But WP i snot a newspaper. We don't need to creat articles now and then see whether, in fact, the subject turns out to be notable enough to keep the article. We do things the other way around: we don't create an article until it is clear that the subject is notable. And, as stated by Trackinfo, "there is no way to determine the broader future significance of these events", i.e., WP:CRYSTAL. --Crusio (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL is wholly irrelevant as this article does not concern a future event or any future speculation. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary, once a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, ongoing coverage isn't required to establish notability. Also, the general notability guideline makes no mention regarding occurrences at events, the number of arrests at events, etc. as consideration for article inclusion or exclusion. Importantly, topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, and not sourcing or content in the articles themselves. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge - dubious sourcing/lasting notability. Merge into OWS article, maybe give a small section. - Haymaker (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have, thanks, and see nothing there which determines definitively that this event, which easily satisfies the GNG, should not have an article. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How's about this, "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance." Drmies (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I see nothing there which determines definitively that this event, which easily satisfies the GNG, should not have an article. Whether this event is of lasting importance requires subjective judgement, yours and mine can be different for all manner of reasons. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your opponents here, including myself, disagree with your claim that the topic satisfies WP:GNG (let alone easily). Key here is item 5, on "presumed," which links directly to WP:NOT, where we find WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Relevant in WP:EVENT, in my opinion, is WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE. In a nutshell, these events, it is maintained, are not of lasting effect and of sufficiently broad scope to warrant inclusion. In another nutshell, coverage in newspapers alone is not a guarantee that a topic should be deemed notable. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

""Keep"" WP:GNG requirements met.RiseRobotRise (talk) 09:24, 24 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Occupy_San_Jose&oldid=1138178286"