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 merge to Occupy Canada. The news sources brought up are local in scope and likely qualify as WP:ROUTINE coverage. Any useful content can be merged into the main article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Regina[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, 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)).

Occupy Regina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This event has no long-term significance. I do not doubt the notability of the large-scale Occupy Movement, but I do not think the Regina protests in and of itself meets basic notability principles. I think the protest should be merged into the "Occupy Canada" article. Colipon+(Talk) 01:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is redundant, I just wanted to plead here to the ultimate 'powers-that-be' who will sum up this discussion to look at the merit of the arguments rather than the number of votes cast on each side, in addition to, obviously, the adherence to the spirit of Wikipedia policies at WP:EVENT, WP:GNG, and WP:N. Colipon+(Talk) 00:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - more than meets GNG as a result of coverage in national Canadian media. This isn't the right place to be discussing a merge, if that is the proposal.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you think the article should be merged, why did you nominate it for deletion? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – If the nominator thinks this should be merged (and I think even !delete voters would have to concede a redirect to Occupy Canada reasonable), the nominator ought to go ahead and begin merging the prose. It's got great supporting cites. JFHJr (㊟) 08:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Some day in the not-too-distant future we'll be able to separate the sheep from the goats with the Occupy articles, stand-alones here and merges there. But deletion, especially in this case, isn't a likely long-term outcome. Certainly in the short term we should keep this around -- no sense deleting material which would have to be rebuild later. Carrite (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All these AfD nominations for the Occupy articles positively reek of petty politics and POV-pushing. Deterence ^Talk 11:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox or blog hosting service. Wikipedia does not give a movement credence by inclusion. This is a non-notable fringe event which has not achieved world wide coverage. Wikipedia has shown through consensus that the Occupy movement is not notable enough for front page coverage doktorb _words^deeds 16:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since when do events need to have worldwide / front page coverage to be notable? And when has the community reached such a consensus? WP:EVENT says that the coverage needs to be over a "wide region" and that in terms of its long-term effects, it says that even though we might not be able determine whether the movements have lasting effects right now, "this does not mean that recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• doktorb has simply cut&pasted his usual objection to any nominations related to the Occupy movement that appear in Wikipedia's In The News page, WP:ITN/C. This is why his vote is essentially incoherent and the rationale behind his vote misses the criteria required of AfD. Deterence ^Talk 21:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My vote here is not a copy and paste from ITN/C, as anyone can see by looking there. Your personal animosity towards me might be clouding your opinions and administrators might want to consider this when looking at your votes here and elsewhere doktorb _words^deeds 21:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? Pray tell, what on Earth is the relevance of this to AfD?: "Wikipedia has shown through consensus that the Occupy movement is not notable enough for front page coverage". And while we're at it, WHAT consensus? Deterence ^Talk 21:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constant failed nominations at ITNC where balanced and reasoned argument has consistently proven that the community which takes part in those debates agrees that the "little local difficulty" which occurs at these "events" is not notable enough for front page coverage. If we extend that to these spin-off articles, we can see very clearly that the articles are essentially stream of consciousness blog posts for minor news stories. Wiki is not a blog hosting service or a primary source for news. As such, these articles violate Wikipedia rules on inclusion. This and others like it should be deleted. doktorb _words^deeds 21:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear God, I feel an urge to take you by the hand and walk you to kindergarten so you can re-learn your ABCs. Your lack of basic English comprehension skills is simply appalling. Deterence ^Talk 21:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you fallen on insults here and elsewhere, I think neutral observers can gather which one of us is dealing with the issues, and which one of us is dealing with personal prejudices and POV pushing. I have directed people to consider that ITN/C has discussed these issues and others, and each time has voted down front page inclusion. This consensus is enough to show that the wider community believes that there is no notability inherent in these articles. I notice that you do not disagree with me that Wikipedia is not a blog hosting service or primary source for news. I also remind you to be WP:CIVIL. doktorb _words^deeds 21:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How on Earth does the failure of a handful of Occupy-related nominations to be posted on Wikipedia's In The News section on the front page entail that all Occupy articles should be deleted? MOST nominations fail, (because ITN has an extremely high notability requirement for inclusion, unless the subject is the resignation of an American football coach who stood back and let a co-worker rape young children), and if we start deleting every article that isn't notable enough for the front page then 99.9% of Wikipedia's articles will be deleted. You're being completely irrational. Were you in the Special Ed classes in school? Are you still in the Special Ed classes in school? Deterence ^Talk 22:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by nominator: I want to respond to an earlier comment that this is somehow 'POV-pushing'. I have surveyed a large number of "Occupy" articles and believe that as of now, about half of them do not meet WP:EVENT guidelines. I agree now, in retrospect, that this would be a discussion better held at the discussion page on the Occupy Movement in general, but I just thought "Occupy Regina" was the most obvious example of a non-notable Occupy event. Of course, the flip side of the same coin is that many Occupy protests are notable in their own right, such as Occupy Oakland, which has raised many discussions about civil disobedience, police brutality, mayoral authority, constitutional rights etc. Occupy Regina, on the other hand, has no apparent long-term significance, and the dust has basically settled on the event. It did not even leave as much a legacy in the city itself. Even if it were to be merged with the Occupy Canada article, it would deserve no more than a few sentences at max. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and we are not an indiscriminate collection of all events covered in the news. Colipon+(Talk) 02:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For goodness sake, that's like saying the Battle of Denmark isn't notable simply because the Battle of France was so much more dramatic. They're all elements of the same Occupy saga, and as such they all have encyclopedic value to anyone doing research into the Occupy movement. Deterence ^Talk 04:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I've contributed to this page and most of its content is repeated in a subsection of Occupy Canada. I think a merge with that article would be an appropriate compromise, since the Occupy Canada article certainly passes the notability benchmarks. Just my 2¢. --Drm310 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is duplicate information on this page as what is on the Occupy Canada page. Delete this page so that the Occupy Canada pages don't get out of control.DivaNtrainin (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Topic of local relevance, if that. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't believe this is seriously being considered. This is censorship, the occupy regina movement is unique and historic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.219.159 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 68.69.219.159 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
• Keep - How can you tell today what may have significance tomorrow? Until the entire protest is completely over, it's impossible to say what could be important and what is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.23.29 (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 71.17.23.29 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
• Keep - This is both separate from Occupy Canada as a whole and ongoing. The only reason to delete this article is to minimize the apparent size of the movement worldwide by deleting entries to it. While Wikipedia is, I agree, not a platform for soapboxing, it should also not be used as a tool for censorship. 50.72.52.12 (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 50.72.52.12 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
• Delete – fails WP:GNG as a stand alone article, already adequately mentioned in Occupy Canada. I originally favored merge/redirect, but in light of the author's 2¢ pointing out most information is already repeated, maybe we can do without a merge. JFHJr (㊟) 16:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The three !Keeps identified as possible results of canvassing fail utterly to even mention a wiki policy or guideline. In fact, they approach conspiracy theory reasoning. I like it, you can't tell it won't become notable soon, and this is censorship of something unique ad historic! Actually, they do provide any reviewing admin three excellent reasons to !Delete, or at least not to give their votes more than a giggle. So with or without canvass tags, these !Keeps already discount themselves. And as I point out, Wikipedia isn't even losing any real information since it can all stay in the Occupy Canada article just fine. JFHJr (㊟) 16:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect only if content is preserved There's actually a lot of info in the Regina article that's not in the Canada article: nor, I suspect, would there be space in the Canada article to have this level of referenced info on the details of each notable local event. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I do not believe this page warrants deletion. Merging with Occupy Canada is a waste of time, as both articles are likely to expand, which would eventually lead to a de-merger later. Duplication on the Occupy Canada page should be reduced with a reference to the Occupy Regina page. Thank you for your consideration. Les Andersen (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article as it holds significant historical record for the activist movements of Regina, Saskatchewan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.3.5.4 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC) — 142.3.5.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - The Occupy movement has the potential to radically alter the focus of public policy for years to come. While its full impact will not be known for some time it is clear that it is far too early to either write off the movement or declare its aims and objectives realized. Canada is a very diverse nation; you simply cannot group every instance of Occupy under one banner and pretend to fairly describe the nuances of the movement. The Maritimes, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northern Canada, Central Canada, the Prairies and the West Coast all have very unique characteristics that results in movements like Occupy being realized differently in each of these regions. It would be a shame to lose a chronicle of how the movement manifested itself in each of these regions by mashing it into a single parent article; this would be an over-simplification and demonstrate a glaring ignorance of the way political movements like this impact the nation at a regional level. It would be like combining the Reform and PC Party articles with the Conservative Party of Canada article because the political ideologies are similar. For now, let's wait and see what happens. It doesn't make sense to destroy information at this stage. Stephen Feltmate (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenfeltmate (talk • contribs) — Stephenfeltmate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - no need to have articles for every single centre where an Occupy protest took place. PKT(alk) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a notable movement, which will continue to develop. Merging would not make sense since it would have to unmerge later. More developments on this site will truly make a historic encyclopedic entry. Never before has a movement been so global and localized at the same time. To delete would lose the unique flavour of this notable event.Sustainabilly 16:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC) — Sustainabilly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment If anyone would care to cite independent sources that provide significant coverage as to why the Occupy Regina movement is unique from other similar movements, that would be helpful to your case, instead of just saying it's unique. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Topic surpasses WP:GNG. See references section in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dispute that this article meets WP:GNG. It clearly does not. The key is the phrasing of 'significant coverage'. I do not believe a news spike of any event amounts to the standard of 'significant coverage' that GNG refers to; this would be seemingly confirmed by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, which clearly stipulates that the event must have some sort of "long-term impact" or was 'pivotal' or 'game-changing' in some way. If such was the case then any event that receives sudden spike in coverage on national media deserves a standalone Wikipedia article. Further, GNG gives a golden caveat for establishing standards for standalone articles, namely: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not." All in all interpreting these guidelines comprehensively the WP:GNG argument does not hold water. Colipon+(Talk) 02:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Here are the many reliable sources currently in the article, which counters the above statement:
      

• "D.O.A.'s Keithley visits Regina 'occupy' camp". CBC News. 29 October 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-12.
• "Occupy Regina protests will go on despite snow, cold". CTV News. November 5, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-12.
• Goudy, Lisa (November 9, 2011). "Occupy Regina protesters rally at city hall with no intention of leaving". Leader-Post (Postmedia Network). Retrieved 2011-11-12.
• "Occupy Regina campers told to leave park". CBC News. November 10, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-12.
• "Occupy Regina protesters given eviction notice Thursday morning". Calgary Herald. November 11, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-12.
• Maciag, Samantha (2011-11-11). "Occupy Regina quiet on Remembrance Day". News Talk 980 CJME (Rawlco Radio). Retrieved 2011-11-13.
• "Police ticket Occupy Regina park-dwellers". CBC News. November 15, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-16.
• "Occupy Regina camp torn down by police". Leader-Post (Postmedia Network). November 16, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-16.
• "Occupy Regina: Police Remove Last Tents From Victoria Park". Huffington Post. November 16, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-21.
• "Occupy tents removed from Regina park". CBC News. November 16, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-16.

The topic clearly passes WP:GNG — Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, sir. The vast majority of those are 'local news' articles - with four or five lines of text, i.e., no more significant than a local traffic accident. Colipon+(Talk) 14:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – WP:GNG doesn't disqualify local news articles whatsoever. They remain reliable, secondary sources. Upon reviewing them again, the vast majority of them actually contain more than four or five lines of text. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Contrary to several of the new IP's comments above, deleting unnecessary fork articles have nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with improving access to related information. What is easier to read, 20 stubs or one article that provides all the information they contain in addition to context and introduction? JimSukwutput 17:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article is small but is sourced, and it's too big to get folded into a generic "Occupy Canada" article. Every episode of "Deep Space Nine" has an article, it doesn't make sense that this is somehow less notable than a pregnant Laxwanna Troi. In all seriousness, I say it's too soon, let this ride until the movement dies out, then start folding the articles back in. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability outside the locality. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tedious local news of no lasting importance. 1 person got arrested and 9 were given tickets. Whoopee do. Szzuk (talk) 23:48, 27 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.