Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The consensus is (just) to keep - but work needs to be done on the article, with more reliable independent sources which directly address the declaration itself.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

99 Percent Declaration
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Much of the article has been removed that gave it accurate referenced context. It continues to be nothing more than a personal promotional page for this non-notable document. Talk page shows direction is being given from document supporters and those with a financial as well as personal stake in this subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 24.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  09:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - When I saw the long list of news sources in the article, I thought this might be a politically motivated AfD. However, on closer examination, *none* of the cited news sources even mention the 99% Declaration, in fact they all describe how the Occupy Wall Street have struggled to formulate demands. On that basis, that the article is entirely self-sourced, I would suggest the Declaration (online petition etc.) is instead mentioned in the main articles, Occupy Wall Street and We are the 99%. Sionk (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently the references that did mention the subject by name were negative and removed for that reason. The article has had all referenced material that contained direct context to the petition deleted and replaced by a good amount of un-referenced material. Even with the referenced information it is little more than a stub that is unlikely to expand. There may actually need to be an IP check on users to determine if a sock puppet is being used by one or more blocked editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To which sources are you referring? The first several I looked at mention it in detail. Also the "Further reading" ELs do, too. Selery (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks for the notice, but I've got a WP:COI and have refrained from editing the article ever since it developed. David in DC (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject matter itself is sufficiently notable and attested to by reliable sources to warrant a keep at this time.  I think that there is a lot of frustration, however, with having to continuously deal with editors with a conflict of interest who continually add self promotional, unreferenced assertions.  That's common, however, with article on political subjects.  The best way to address it is through consistent application of Wikipedia standards.--Nowa (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Much Wikilove for that well worded contribution to this discussion!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Occupy Wall Street. Even the existence of sources doesn't make this a notable topic. It's hardly the US constitution or the Magna Carta--it's more like the Unabomber manifesto: a useful redirect. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I could live with a merge....but which article?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:GNG with abundant sources. What happened to all the content? I'm not thrilled with how newbies are being treated. Much sourced content has been removed because it was added by an IP. Selery (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you read the talk page (not an easy task since the "newbies" frequently placed their edits at the top of the discussion rather than in order) you would find that the established editors have been very patient with them. Note as well that "they" sometimes called themselves one person and other times another, to the point that I suggested that they were lying.  Then they said they were posting from the same computer and that I was an asshole, as were the rest of us.  There is more...at any rate, they were asked again and again to read-up on policy rather than blame us for deleting information that they wanted to include in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried. I understand your frustration, but try to remember when you were new. I've often found that the best solution for situations which require a lot of patience is more patience. Selery (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * New? You've been here for two years.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Odd, that is almost word for word what Dualus once wrote.Hmmmm. At any rate "Selery" It is not upon the older editors to guide you. those that do are a special kind of editor one should respond to with civility. If you can do that it matters not if you have been here a day or 7 years. Stop falling back on how new you are. If you are THAT new and know so little, perhaps you should be researching the policy and guidelines FIRST before you start editing. Just a suggestion.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Nominator claims on article talk page that group has no affiliation to Occupy Wall Street but Official Occupy Wall Street Working Group external link which was just removed establishes the affiliation. Nominator also claims that COI editors are directing work from talk page, but that is consistent with our WP:COI rules. Selery (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually...read that talk page again and try to be more accurate with accusations.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also that is not consistant with Wikipedia:COI. It states clearly: "If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no rights to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit, and once added will not be deleted just because the author doesn't like it anymore. Any editor has the right to add or remove material to the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find themselves presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you breach our editing policies or "edit war" in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you are likely to have your editing access removed. In addition, if your article is found to not be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, do not create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about."


 * I removed that link again: the above group is linked from the "official website" link. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally I would not object, but since this AFD is predicated on no official association between the two groups, could I ask that you please replace the EL for the duration of the AFD? Selery (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete pending more reliable sources. Or can someone point me to a specific source which meets WP:N?  I didn't see any.  Be— —Critical  19:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep More than the two independent sources which are reliable enough to meet the WP:GNG criteria. Topic is encyclopedic and article is large enough not to merge to another article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which independent reliable sources give in-depth coverage of "99 Percent Declaration"? Do you mean the two college newspapers in the further reading? Where are the others? Surely that's not sufficient justification for such a blatantly self-promotional article. Sionk (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In-depth is not required. What I see is at least a screen full of information on the topic from these sites, and this satisfies the criterion. Self promotion is an internal article content problem and not relevant to the issue as to whether the topic should have an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actualy promotional articles are one of the criteria for nomination for deletion.......which is why this is here. The references are horrible and several are opinion being cited as fact. (Huffington post references actualy are tertiary sources relying on the Gaurdian UK article by Haack who is central in this subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No opinion: Seen articles with stronger arguments for notability in terms of meeting WP:GNG get deleted.  Not sure on the sources here.  I think a case could almost be made it could be deleted under the one event clause... but there are sources that I could argue elsewhere would represent meeting WP:GNG.  Just yeah.  Don't have enough evidence either way to have a coherent opinion given the articles current state. (Previously, I argued delete.) --LauraHale (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Lean delete: Additional reading and reviewing of past arguments, lack of sources mean a change in vote for me. --LauraHale (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Numerous references online which meet reliable sources criteria. Also, this article is a bit rough (in need of work). Page views 250+ per day suggest it is an important topic; I realize this is not a formal criteria for inclusion/deletion but it indicates interest in a subject, and suggests notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC) What I don't quite understand is -- is the 99% Declaration an outgrowth from the OWS movement (even a tangential splinter?) or a totally unaffiliated group jumping on the OWS bandwagon? If a splinter offshoot, the general sense is that there is disagreement between the main OWS opinion (if there is such) and the 99% Declaration, mainly that the OWS mainstream view (again if there is one) wants to distance itself from the 99% Declaration -- is this right (?) -- I just think whoever decides about this article should take this stuff under consideration, and I think it seems reasonable that if the 99%ers are totally unaffiliated with the OWS (and we're sure about this) then it weakens the case for this article, but if it's a splinter offshoot, even if there is disagreement between 99%ers and OWSers, then it suggests we keep it (again, partly since the page view counts are relatively high at 250) since it may impact on what happens to OWS, it may cause some kind of convention in Philadelphia, possibly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I just looked examined all of the references in the article, and none of them give evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's correct. If one reads the exact section at WP:GNG for notability it actually fails all of them.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not fully understand about the lack of reliable sources or significant coverage arguments here. Huffington Post, The Atlantic,  Philly.com,  Washington Times,  The News Tribune,  Salon Magazine,  KYW Newsradio,  USA Today,  The Guardian,  The New York Times,  Times Live,  Canada.com,  Business Mirror -- these are unreliable sources? Even three of these, by themselves, would be sufficient to source an article. While the 99% Declaration may not have been the entire subject of every article, in most instances it was not just a mention, but was discussed prominently -- as if its important -- something readers need to know about -- along with sometimes critical commentary for and against it. It is getting even more attention in the Huffington Post recently (more sources are available which were not included in the article). So I am confused about the reasoning here, and wondering if somebody might kindly explain?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course those newspapers are reliable sources for information. The question is whether there is significant coverage of 99 Percent Declaration in the cited sources, as opposed to general talk about the demands, or lack of demands, of the Occupy movement. Sionk (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic says the 99% Declaration is calling for a National General Assembly. USA Today discussed the bullet points that the group made, and quibbled with some of the points made. Times Live discussed the 99% Declarations notions of bailouts. CBS Philly described efforts by Philadelphia municipal officials to accommodate a convention if it happens. The Declaration has been discussed in foreign publications such as Canada.com. Kindly explain why you feel this is not significant coverage--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete promotion page that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Mythpage88 (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The coverage however is significant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying something and demonstrating it are two wildly different things. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Many people believe that the 99% Declaration is an official document put out by OWS. I'd like to keep this article which states that it is not. Gandydancer (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for now Sounds more than significant enough sources - and seems to still be operating. However, don't see any recent WP:RS action. If it goes defunct before having its event, it becomes a footnote merged into the Occupy Movement article. One doesn't have to agree with what's in it to support keeping it for now and putting back some of the content, assuming reliably sourced. CarolMooreDC 05:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Possible merge with Occupy Wall Street: I believe there is consensus to keep but serious doubts still remain as a full article to expand at this time. Maybe in the future as things progress, so we don't won't to lose the subject and we do want to note it with due weight that many feel it deserves. Perhaps we simply can merge the article back to the main OWS article under a section documenting the off shoot branches and movement that came directly from the original protests including any other documents and associated movements.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why people generally feel that the 99% Declaration and Occupy Wall Street are not officially related; so why merge them?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficiently notable in its own right, as shown by the sources. If content demonstrating that was removed before the AfD, restore it.  DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.