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, though note that several editors recommended reviewing this and other "Occupy X" articles once the protests have ended. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Sacramento (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 article reads like a news report, and actually has less information than one. Non-notable protest, which does not warrant a separate article in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Topic immediately passes the top notability guideline, WP:GNG. Also, per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary, and once a topic has received significant coverage, it does not require ongoing coverage to establish notability. I've added more information and references to the Occupy Sacramento article. The general notability guideline makes no mention regarding number of arrests during an event, things that occur during an event, etc. as consideration for article inclusion or exclusion. Also, topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, and not sourcing or content in the articles themselves. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We are not a newspaper. If we keep adding more and more articles on all these "occupy" protests because CNN or NBC or ABC or Reuters mentioned it, we'll have a good few hundred. Although I do agree that NA1000 has good point, that doesn't warrant the creation of another "Occupy" article. However, it still isn't notable, IMO, although it may have considerable media coverage. Although there are arrests, that's out of only 200 protesters, and that statement about the "If you're an occupier, you know who you are" really isn't encyclopedic. It simply sounds like a newspaper article or online news article about Occupy Sacramento, not a Wikipedia article that establishes the notability and doesn't contain trivial info. HurricaneFan25 01:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This AfD discussion is about the notability of the Occupy Sacramento article only. This isn't a forum for discussion regarding hypothetical creation of other "Occupy" articles. How does the availability of reliable sources for this topic not pass WP:GNG? It seems apparent that the topic does pass this fundamental guideline. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the following reasons:

The article is just a stub and I stepped back to allow others to add to it. However as far as notablity...Sacramento is the California State Capital and the protests occur at the state capital as well as Cezar Chavez Park. Total arrests thus far are 68 including activist Cindy Sheehan best known for her occupation outside former President George W. Bush's Texas ranch. Wikipedia has no limitation on the number of associated articles and the argument that this is "another" occupy article is not an argument at all. As far as the quote...it doesn't have to sound encyclopedic and is another false argument...it's a quote mentioned in the article used as the reference which simply speaks to the warning the organizers were giving before arrests. The number of protester mentioned above here at 200 is not the total of protestors but who were there at that moment. There are a enough reliable sources with enough information to expand the article by a good deal.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Drmies. WP is not a newspaper, nor a social network to organize protests. --Crusio (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Per Wikipedia article traffic statistics I just checked, Occupy Sacramento has been viewed 284 times thus far in October 2011. This is a global statistic, for all page views of this article on the planet, including the edits I have made to the page. Arguments that this article is intended to facilitate social networking or exists as a means to organize protests don't correlate with the statistics whatsoever. See also WP:NOTPAPER: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as the editor that began the article I can tell you it isn't a trying to organize anything. Were my edits to Meg Whitman's page during the election an attempt to promote Whitman...or the nearly equal amount of edits I made to Jerry Brown. No...people passionate about the subject are perfect editors to contribute to these articles and does not constitute active organizing of anything but the actual article. Assuming bad faith is one thing, but you are assuming the start of the article was meant as an organizing effort for the movement itself instead of just the stub article it was, on a notable event in my area. There are a lot more of these protests out here....and they are un-notable, even if they are getting media coverage.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is NOT a NEWSPAPER. Listen again! Wikipedia is NOT a NEWSPAPER. Read under #2: "News reports". This article is written like a news report, and this is non-notable. You can argue that this article is notable by 1) the number of arrests; while it is large compared to other "Occupy" protests, all the value it adds to the article is just a fancy number on a fancy event in a protest. 2) You could also argue that the number of participants is significant - 200, but compared to Occupy Boston, it's nothing. 3) The article is practically made up only of a short lede, what a protester said, an infobox, and information on arrests, which is pretty shallow depth. HurricaneFan25 11:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The topic's notability surpasses WP:GNG, per significant coverage in reliable sources. Comparisons to other protests, some of which have their own articles, aren't relevant to this discussion. AfD is about topic notability, not comparisons to other events. See also WP:NOTPAPER: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you plrease read WP:EVENTS? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - All these "Occupy" articles should be provisionally kept as "No Consensus" until sufficient time passes that the sheep can be separated from the goats. Not News is going to apply to many or most, but we don't need to be chucking babies with bathwater at this early date. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please read WP:EVENTS? Thanks. HurricaneFan25 18:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three thousands words to say: "Lasting significance — IN, Passing significance — OUT." So, close this No Consensus and we'll figure that out when we figure that out...

Money lines:

• Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
• Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
• Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
• Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

So this corrects my wrongheadedness here, how exactly??? Carrite (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now per Carrite - a protests in the state capital of US's largest state, leads to lots of coverage outside the local market. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because there is no reason Wikipedia should not be a newspaper. Anything verified by multiple reliable sources is Wikipedic. Period. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for clarifying that. Silly me, always thinking that it was not. Perhaps you could re-write the appropriate policies and guidelines, so that those of us who still suffer from the delusion that we're trying to create an encyclopedia here will be enlightened? Thanks. Oh, and period. --Crusio (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Satisfies the GNG. Looked at the not news guideline, and this seems as non-routine as they come.  The Steve  16:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. There is some media coverage, but will there ever be enough content to destub the article? If I could think of a valid merge target... till then, reluctant keep. Something happened there, and seems marginally notable. I do however support the other editors who think we may need to think about some reasonable merge option. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG. A future restructing of the 'Occupy' articles is likely but will require proper discussion and careful thought, in the meantime this is an article on an independently notable topic and capable of further expansion. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Although I have !voted delete above, I think that a valid alternative would be a merge to List of "Occupy" protest locations, which would solve two problems: getting rid of an (at best) barely notable stub here and the list could finally become a real list with information in it. --Crusio (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Northamerica1000. CallawayRox (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It meets the GNG, that's all that matters. Whether someone doesn't like it or not, is not relevant. And by keep, I don't mean shove all these articles together with just a token sentence carried over and call it a merge. Dream Focus 21:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Drmies and Hurricane, Wikipedia is not news. - Haymaker (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep A quick search reveals plenty of potential references, the movment has gathered very much media attention worldwide, offering opportunities for further sourcing and expansion. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - a handful of wikipedians cannot deny notability and legitimacy to these protesters and their event. That it be distinct from the Occupy Wall Street movement is also important. A merger would dwarf the event. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional keep. At the moment it is difficult to distinguish the importance of the various "Occupy..." events from one another, or to evaluate their individual lasting significance. After the events are over it will be easier to evaluate which of them are individually significant and which are only notable (and have received coverage) as part of the larger phenomenon.  Sandstein  06:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Occupy is a world phenomenon. It's all over the newspapers, radio and tv. Capital Public Radio, Sacramento Press, CBS News... PolicarpioM (talk) 08:24, 27 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.