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The result was Withdrawn. But I will note that it is entirely proper to open a new AFD for an article that was coupled with another article in an AFD that closed as no consensus. v/r - TP 17:27, 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)

Discussion #1 closed as no consensus, in part because it was coupled with an article that was deemed to be of differing quality than it. I'm decoupling Ashland from Eugene, and renominating, on the basis that no consensus can mean push to a new AFD Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the original deletion rationale was:

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.

And the original closing rationale was:

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

Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because of Occupy Ashland's facebook page, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Speedy close. You nominated this again less than two hours after the previous discussion closed. Why would you possibly think that renominating was a good idea? WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED is not a strategy that it's recommended we should use. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It was perfectly appropriate to renominate it. Did you even bother to read my rationale? For starters, the guideline you cite applies almost exclusively to articles where the outcome was "keep". It is perfectly acceptable to renominate something that is closed as no consensus; loads of AFDs with no consensus are just automatically relisted for another week. In fact, a close read of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED would note that your Speedy Keep looks surprisingly like the "Article survived previous AFD and should not have to be subjected to this rubbish again" that is suggested be avoided in the guideline you cite. This would suggest that it is you who is violating said guideline. Furthermore, most of the reason that the 1st nomination was closed was on procedural grounds that requested that Ashland be decoupled from Eugene, which was also nominated in the first AFD. So this is really a much different AFD than previously. And finally, I left a note to the original closer asking if what I did was right, and he hasn't said that it was wrong yet Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Highly annoying reopening of this, given the AP wire report of Occupy Ashland which emerged between the time the first challenge was made and the time it was closed. I've spent lots of time saying the same thing again and again: one more time. It is not yet time to decide what is free-standing, what needs to be merged, and what might be deleted on any of these Occupy things. Chopping now risks losing info in the event that things need to be recreated. There is clear evidence that the Occupy pieces are newsworthy in their major urban incarnations and will be — at a minimum — the object of state-level mergers into combined articles beyond that. Is Occupy Ashland a free-standing KEEP or a merge target into a still-uncreated article? It is too early to tell. What is painfully obvious already is that this is not something which should be deleted outright. I've cited publication and page for the wire report in the previous, just-closed nomination. Now please, can we just avert our eyes from these Occupy pieces and trust that it will all work out for the best in the end? Carrite (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Highly annoying"? Can you point to how reopening a discussion that was closed as no consensus violates policy in any way? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't allege any violation of policy; certainly it is WITHIN POLICY to open up a "no consensus" article for reexamination. However, it is completely tone deaf to rush to do so in this case and that is really ANNOYING. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per reliable sources the topic passes WP:GNG, including, but not limited to:
  

• "Occupy Ashland: Day Two." KOBI 5 NBC Affiliate.
• Holmes, Sarah (October 20, 2011). "Occupy Ashland protests continue as supporters rally in Medford." The Siskiyou.
• Barnard, Jeff (October 27, 2011). "Occupy Wall Street goes micro in small town." (Sourced from the Associated Press.) Deseret News.
• Associated Press. (October 27, 2011). "Small Oregon Towns Join Occupy Movement." Oregon Public Broadcasting News.
• Associated Press (November 2, 2011)."Occupy roundup: Ashland group votes to cut back; Occupy Seattle march on Chase CEO." The Oregonian.
  

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: that's 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 substantial independent published sources... We're done. Let it snow. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you can't call SNOW until it's like 8-1. And now it's only 4-2, as someone below has voted merge Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Really? Two hours later... --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, it's perfectly acceptable to renominate something that was closed as no consensus at any time Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep again. It has coverage. Dream Focus 15:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge There's no content here (just three sentences, two of which are problematic) with little prospect for changing this on this transient local news event. This should be a sentence or two in an article with broader scope or a list article. "Not news" is certainly a wiki-way to say this. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment—Maybe this should have been taken to DRV instead of reopening. Not because reopening is against policy, obviously it's not, but because this is just going to force everyone who participated in the last deletion discussion to repeat their arguments here (I didn't participate in it). I was reading over the previous discussion in preparation for commenting here, and it occurred to me that a close of "no consensus" is different from a relisting. Closing as no consensus maybe says that the closing admin thinks that no consensus is going to be reached, whereas relisting says that a consensus might still be reached. If the nominator thinks that a consensus can be reached now when it couldn't before, that's essentially saying that the first AFD was improperly closed, and so this should be at deletion review, not here again.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator: I'm throwing in the towel, as I can see that this nomination is not going anywhere, and that continuing it would waste more community time and tarnish my reputation Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:02, 7 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.