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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Marines

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

For notability reasons, I'm proposing this article for deletion. The news coverage is anecdotal and is mainly about their facebook page. I feel like this is highly promotional and this group doesn't really do anything. 완젬스 (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I 'follow' Occupy Marines on Twitter, and have become better informed for it. There is no good reason to delete their Wikipedia page. Patriotism should be lauded. Not scrutinized to the point of tedium.— 66.245.255.96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:25, 24 November 2011‎ (UTC).[reply]


The fact that they have 501(c)(3) status helps but it's still just the same two guys. Stopwar.co.uk isn't exactly a neutral source -- but they're not really against the war either (they're just on the other side). I'll stay undecided for now. -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the purpose of your comment on my statement is, or the relevance for notability of whether a publication is itself neutral, or the strange comment about some org being 'on the other side'... EverSince (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were two points: 1) not every 501(c)(3) is notable; and 2) stopwar.co.uk's admiration doesn't make them notable. It still comes down to the nature of it. Here's what's required: WP:ORG. Is this more than than just two guys with a website? -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes your first point does not relate to my statement so please add it to your own if you want. Regarding 2), please keep your personal political views to yourself and focus on the process of evaluating sources to establish notability of coverage as outlined also in Wikipedia:Notability which I did not need reminding of thank you. EverSince (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My personal views don't affect whether or not I think something is notable.
It still comes down to my question: Is this more than than just two guys with a website? -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so you shouldn't have disrupted my statement with your political opinions and your personal framing of the issue (which is actually about the extent and nature of independent coverage) EverSince (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such as also http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-20124777/semper-fi-non-active-marines-called-to-occupy/ EverSince (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good source of the same singular event but that's still just one of the same two guys running a website. -- Randy2063 (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No you misrepresent the article - as can be seen it describes an event involving a marine but then moves on to "The group Occupy Marines says...". Again stop trying to reframe my statement as if the issue is about the number of people comprising OccupyMarines - that is relevant to the description that should be given in the article, not whether the article should exist which is dependent on the extent and (procedural-) quality of publications covering it (notability). EverSince (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Btw it appears that the OccupyMarines user account has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia apparently because the name is "related to a "real-world" group or organization" EverSince (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD has nothing to do with silencing anyone or supporting any sort of regime. Lately there have been a lot of groups adding OWS themed pages to Wikipedia. Some have had enough coverage to warrant a page. Some have not. While I believe that OM could potentially get this and that it's a little too soon to delete the page, I do not believe that anyone nominated this in bad faith. Not everything is a conspiracy, so please do not throw about accusations along the lines of "what are they afraid of?". It does not accomplish anything, nor does it show proof as to why this page should remain. AfD do not work that way. Also, the argument "other stuff exists" does not count as an argument to keep the page. Saying that you find an article or page helpful does not count as a vote in its favor either. (See WP:ITSUSEFUL.) I do want to commend people for their passion about the subject, but also be aware that deletion discussions are not decided on a vote. Coming onto Wikipedia just to comment on this deletion discussion will not accomplish much unless you can back it up with valid reasons to keep it that are covered under the general notability guidelines. (WP:GNG) I've seen it happen where there's been more "keep" statements than "delete" ones, but an article was still deleted because the "keep" statements could not give valid reasons to keep the article. I'm not trying to be incendiary, just making sure that everyone coming on here knows how AfD works. I notice that there's a lot of new faces. Again, the proposed deletion of the page was not done to silence anyone and believe it or not, most of the OWS themed groups that have come up for deletion have actually survived the process because of people chipping in to prove notability enough to warrant saving it, so it's not like Wikipedia itself is trying to silence anyone or can't handle political events. Please be careful about how you phrase your arguments because just coming on and making statements like that will not accomplish anything as far as AfD goes. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Well regarding quality of arguments it's a shame you didn't intervene earlier to warn the editor above who was just throwing out his own political biases and judgements of the group while I was simply providing valid sources showing notability. Also if you actually look at the talk page of the editor who proposed deletion it does seem to show a gripe against Occupy so I'm not sure why you're so blindly defending Wikipedia procedures. EverSince (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely that the page SHOULD NOT be deleted. If Wikipedia wants to assure fair and equal distribution of informative and valid information, then leaving it up would do JUST that. If not for the OccupyMarines wikipedia page, THIS Iraq war veteran (serving 2 years in Baghdad and 6 months in Kandahar) would not have found information on fellow vets supporting the movement. IF this website wants to continue with a reputation of enlightening the masses then I would suggest you take a close look at how their support is growing through its FB page and thru a simple google of the Occupy Marines movement. Otherwise, you are all just as bad if not WORSE than the pathetic political leaders that are screwing you and all your future unborn childrens lives over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngryUScitizen76 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you would look above, you'd notice that I was the first to suggest that this should be kept. The problem with a lot of the OWS fringe pages is that there's been a rush to include every group that forms. While it's great that people are forming to voice their opinions, Wikipedia is not a soap box and in order to remain on here the page needs to have reliable sources. This is the way it's always been on Wikipedia and again, these policies have actually saved a good chunk of the more well sourced fringe OWS groups out there. (Like I said, many of the Occupy pages usually pass AfD because eventually people find sources.) Again, Wikipedia is not a soap box and it's not a place to advertise for various groups. I just wish that people would turn this energy out towards finding sources for this article. It is not a suppression of opinions, especially since the original article creator has the option to userfy the article, meaning that he or she could keep it on their user page and work on it until it has enough sources to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If one of the people coming on here to voice their opinion wants to do this in place of the article creator, I have no problem with that. The issue is that no matter how noble a group's intention are or how vocal its supporters are, it still has to follow the same notability guidelines that every other article has to pass to get an article on here. Much like OWS protesters say that certain groups don't deserve special treatment, we believe the same thing: no group should get special treatment and everyone should have to follow the rules of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I feel that the protection of free speech and the political neutrality of WP is more important than the few bits this entry takes up. It could serve someone trying to research the Occupy movement and hurts no one. It's removal would be a disturbing sign that WP is engaging in political activity and suppression of opinions. I say keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.109.30 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody asked, "Why delete this?" It's a good question. Look at the article itself. There are only two names associated with it, Scott Olsen and Shamar Thomas. And yet this article doesn't even specifically say that they're members. We can only infer that they are. Somebody needs to clear that up ASAP.
There are plenty of organizations that don't get WP articles about them. I can think of one in particular that is also on WP's spam list, which means we can't even cite them as references or external links.
If you want to keep this article, and they're a noteworthy organization, then please put some of your efforts into turning the article itself into more than an advertisement for a fringe website that will be gone after the fringe moves on. Find sources that tell us who they actually are.
I'm still on the fence on this one. Who's their leader? Who's their press secretary? Who's their treasurer? Got a legitimate source? Then edit it into the article. Get us some more names and I'll be more than satisfied.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since some people here may be affiliated with the "organization" I'll note that it may be worthwhile putting some of the needed leadership information on the website, which might then be referenced. It may not be sufficient for fully establishing noteworthiness but it will add to the material we have now.
At the moment, they appear to be anonymous. An anonymous blog can be noteworthy enough for an article, but not one that's only been around for a month, and probably won't make it through winter. Be serious, folks.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tokyogirl179, again, I ask why are you lecturing at those making a case for the article, and not advising those such as Randy2063 who is continually just throwing out personal judgements of the group and making characterizations of it that have nothing to do with the issue - which is whether the extent of coverage in reliable independent sources is enough to establish noteworthiness. Randy2063 please stay on topic instead of posting your own original research. EverSince (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original research? I'm (a) citing their own website; and (b) asking that others find more sources about who these people are. That's not a merely personal judgment.
This is an anonymous group that's had a website for a little over a month. That's observation, not a personal judgment.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guideline is clear that the issue is whether the group has been noted and discussed by multiple independent secondary sources, several of which have now been provided ("Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability"). According to the guideline, their self-published material is potentially relevant for the article content after that. But your characterization of that has been shown to be unreliable anyway - you keep saying it's "just a website", which is inaccurate because there is also an associated facebook group (which the deletion proposal was complaining about along with the obviously prejudiced claim that "this group doesn't really do anything") plus a twitter feed and a petition aimed at various govt officials, and I don't know what other activities online or offline. And you kept saying it's just two guys but now you're complaining they're anonymous (like anonymous (group) in that respect then) but in either case the issue is independent secondary sources establishing notability as a group. EverSince (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a website and a facebook page and a twitter account. I've already noted that. Maybe they have their own stationery, too.
Yes, I did say it's just two guys but I thought they were willing to be known as affiliated with the "organization." They probably are the group but their website doesn't say that.
"Anonymous (group)" is not a 501(c)(3). "Occupy Marines" is. They're not supposed to be anonymous.
After looking at WP:GNG, I think user:Cox wasan is right. But I'm really not asking for much.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again you're distracting away from the issue of the demonstrated notability in multiple published national sources, to your speculation and denigration of the details of the group, which are matters for an article not a deletion proposal. So, great argument when it comes down to it - Cox wasan: 'fails notability for GNG' (no reason given & can't even be bothered to spell out the jargon for non-wikipedianites), Randy2063: 'I think Cox wasan is right'. EverSince (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's right. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail... You do have some references but they don't tell us who these people are -- and I don't mean just their names. This article isn't a stub anymore, and it still doesn't have much to say. The "See also" section is almost half of it.
Once again, I'm not asking for much. I'd just like some hard information so that when Wikipedia is used as a link for 501(c)(3) fundraising appeals, the readers will have some names on record. They've only had a domain name since October 19th.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Typical tactic of some Wikipedianites to cite policies to try and show they're talking from authority while simultaneously misrepresenting it for their own ends. The guideline does NOT specify what particular details have to be provided, it just says there has to be enough content to base a substantive amount of content on. And NOWHERE does it say anything about 501(c)(3) status needing to be discussed, you're simply making that up. Wikipedia is collaborative and not about you and what you would personally like others to find for you (see WP:OWN). EverSince (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I didn't say 501(c)(3) status is needed. If you'll recall, I had said that it helps here. The source says they're working on it, which works in favor of a keep. That's about the only thing they have going for them.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another independent published article, dated 11th November 2011 in The Nation periodical, http://www.thenation.com/article/164553/veterans-occupy-wall-street The relevant section: "Since then, the visibility of veterans and veteran organizations at Occupy events around the country has grown, becoming more persistent and evident to both protesters and organizers. After witnessing the police brutality in New York earlier this month, a group of veterans calling themselves Occupy Marines pledged its support to the Occupy Wall Street movement. “As veterans we were led to believe [that] our service was to protect America’s way of life abroad,” a spokesperson of the organization explains, “We did not want to believe that our presence in the Middle East was to ensure an oil supply, or to deepen the pockets of the financial elites. Many…lost their life out there, and the suggestion that their sacrifice was for profits, or oil, is unbearable. [That is why] we came forward to protect these demonstrators’ ability to express their constitutional First Amendment right.” EverSince (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pledge of support but not news of what they've already done.
If they said that they have already been providing security (like the 501st Legion at SF conventions) then that would be something notable. There are better examples but I didn't want to venture into past history.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again please stop putting your interpretation of guidelines and sources over the top of everything. That is not how notability is defined in the guidelines. In any case it's not just a pledge of support it's detail on the rationale given by the group as reported in a national publication as you can well see yourself. EverSince (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability includes "significant coverage." Apparently, they've had enough significant coverage to write a tiny stub, most of which is a boastful mission statement apparently from their facebook page.
But since you obviously like it. I'm not going to vote it down.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I said nothing about that either way. EverSince (talk) 01:08, 29 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.
More