Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of "Occupy" protest locations


 * 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   WP:IAR keep. I am going to WP:IAR close this as keep to avoid drama and name throwing. Appears to be a WP:SNOW keep but with significant rationale towards deleting. The article is worth reevaluating in a few to six months to determine if notability of the list (not the movement) exists. v/r - TP 16:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

List of "Occupy" protest locations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Spam-magnet which is serving as a giant advertisement for a bunch of low-profile events. This has nothing to do with my extremely strong support for these protests; but our standards cannot be waived just because I agree with them. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Our standards cannot be waived just because I agree with them?" There is something really wrong with maintaining an arbitrary standard to the detriment of the underlying information, IMHO. That makes no sense, and to use a rule just to hinder something strikes me as unnecessarily bureaucratic and obstructive. I am not  waging a personal attack, just stating a disagreement with the approach to policy.  Isn't that somewhat like admitting that one can only vote for politicians one disagrees with??? Also, events do not seem to me to be low-profile, on the whole.  There may be a few that are of low attendance, but any that remain in the list have adequate noteability and contribute to an appreciable and historically significant shift in political paradigms. Sngourd (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Sngourd (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep There are protests going on worldwide inspired by both Madrid and New York movements. We should not underestimate the impact both of these events have had globally. Pristino (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is another ridiculous deletion request. Certainly meets the notability requirement. And it is referenced out the wazoo. Please stop wasting our time. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I fully agree with Timeshifter Trackinfo (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep These events events could become crucial, and are very relevant. This shouldn't even be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.63.72 (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I agree (for the moment) that it should be kept, that comment is both false and irrelevant to whether the article should be kept. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a major event of our generationTotallyhenley (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Totallyhenley (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep This list is monitored. Sources are added and unreliable sources are replaced. It is not a spam-magnet. We are providing an updated list backed up by reliable sources, something that other aggregating sits aren't doing. We are providing a service. Rachel librarian (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC) — Rachel librarian (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * reply - That's the deprecated WP:USEFUL argument. We are not here to provide a bulletin board, we are here as a reference work. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do some admins practice at being annoying? Are you trying to alienate editors? Do you care? You did not acknowledge Rachel's point: "It is not a spam-magnet. We are providing an updated list backed up by reliable sources". That point directly addressed one of your concerns. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the gratuitous personal attack: on examination, it appears to me that many, indeed most, of the links are to trivial coverage of non-events, which may not technically fall under the term "spam" but does fail our standards of notability, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. (On a more personal note, I will admit in passing that it's a welcome change to see the press giving exaggerated coverage to protests from anybody to the left of Glenn Beck, instead of pretending we don't exist when we do turn out.) -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While many of the events may indeed be "non events" this page is notable in that it covers the true extent of the movement. 20 years from now, when people are trying to recollect where similar events were held and what the end results were (for whatever reason - be it school papers or personal interest), this page will be quite useful. Is it now? Maybe not. Will it be then? Certainly. How much detail do we lack from historical events? Plenty. What if it had been recorded in encyclopedias by people as it occurred? We'd have a much better understanding of our past. There is no reason that Wikipedia shouldn't be that place. This event is notable. The spread of the event is notable. The specifics of where it spread will be useful in the future. Do I know every Wikipedia policy to link back to you? No, sorry, I fear I don't. I just hope that this is a fairly reasonable request. I support the Keep - light theworld (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Each protest movement is not a non-event. Each is an event, and when the sum total of all these events that have received world-wide notice is taken into account, the dialogue has shifted appreciably.  This meets standards of WP:NRVE in that there are several independent, verifiable sources cited, and standards of WP:NTEMP in that this change in dialogue is likely to be either permanent or, at the least of permanent note as would be stated in history texts.  As per WP:LISTN, the list or set is in itself notable, as the items in the list contribute to the historical import of the event.  As per WP:EFFECT, these events are highly likely to have lasting effect, as many media sources have indicated that the protests are probably not going away any time soon.  An analogue can be reached through comparison to Tea Party protests, which although somewhat qualitatively different, are still having an impact on political thought a few years after the beginnings.  As per WP:GEOSCOPE, there are well-sourced (or sourceable) links included here spanning many different locations on the Earth.  As per WP:INDEPTH, almost all the example news sources for this Wikipedia guideline has carried news about these protests. Sngourd (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The "occupy" branded protests are gaining major media attention worldwide. A list of related events should be kept.--Львівське (говорити) 22:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Relevant and useful. The list is well referenced. + m t  22:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although the name is apparently wrong for the present contents of the article, the list of locations does seem encyclopedic, although almost certainly outdated by the time we see it. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply, but don't really make the article inappropriate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Arthur Rubin wrote what I wanted to write, only better. The extensive citations prove notability and make it considerably higher quality than many lists on Wikipedia. If spam's a problem then semi-protection, not deletion, is in order. Lagrange613 22:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid list related article here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes the WP:GNG with over 200 references. The event is notable and relevant. → Σ  τ  c . 01:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes GNG, useful function. Start and stop dates for each would be beneficial. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that this article attracts lots of spam, unreliable sources, and specious links to "protests" that may or may not be protests... Anticipating this several days ago, I created a sortable table for this article with each protest getting a column for the city/state, a column for the protest name, and a column for reliable sources. see the bottom of this article version Some editors took it away because they felt the coding of a table would be too difficult for inexperienced wikipedia editors to add information, and would thus prompt fewer people to edit the list. PRECISELY! Come to find out, it is apparently too easy for people to come along and drop any old link into the current article. Just saying, maybe it is time to convert this list to a table. Better yet, why don't we just create a list called list of 2011 protests. MPS (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - A functional, useful directory and list. Also passes WP:GNG: numerous references. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Please keep this valuable reference page. I am a Lecturer in Anthropology in Ireland. I am currently teaching a class called Economic Anthropology. I just posted a link to the List of "Occupy" Protests page on my students' course website, as the movement is relevant to what they are studying, and this page documents the global extent of the protests. The links to local media reports is particularly relevant and important, as I am teaching them to understand global-local linkages. Please do not delete.I am sorry if I am not doing this in the right way - this is the first time I have tried to join a Wikipedia discussion of a page. My name is Patty. (UTC)
 * delete or, at the very least, turn into a list of articles. Currently it is list of cities, loosely connected for having a itself loosely connected protest. - Nabla (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I agree with the posters above that being a spam magnet is not directly a reason to delete. However, this list at this point is totally unencyclopedic. At this point, it is difficult to say how notable the "occupy" protests are going to turn out. yes, they're in the news now, so they are notable, but are they notable enough for a whole suite pf articles? Is there any reason why this list cannot be condensed to the most important locations and included in the main "occupy" article? WP is neither Facebook nor a newspaper. --Crusio (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no doubt in my mind that movement is notable, and no doubt that some of the particular locations will be notable enough to have a list of them. The list seems to be pretty well sourced, although I think some of the references are not RS. Crusio, with respect, I do not think that all of the locations listed in the list are not notable enough for inclusion in the list is a good argument for deleting the article, as AFD is not cleanup, nor is the argument that there are currently a suite of articles treating the subject, as the question here is whether this article warrants inclusion. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment My remark on the "suite of articles" was meant to indicate that this list is one of those and, if pared down to what is really notable, could easily be included in the main article. So there's no need for a stand-alone list. --Crusio (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that clarification, I understand your reasoning now. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - an essential article to make sense of a very large number of closely connected and highly notable protests.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Through the article is not fine, this i surely notable happenings. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 15:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This was a useful article for me to get some context for the scope of the protests I see happening around me.
 * WP:USEFUL is not a valid AFD argument. Oren0 (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean up. It may be worth considering only linking protests that have articles themselves, otherwise this article has a WP:IINFO problem. A gathering  of 50 people three days ago that was covered by one newspaper is not long-term notable, but large gatherings may be. Oren0 (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:LISTS and WP:Notability. List topics have to be notable. Same as article topics. Every item in a list, just like every fact in an article, does not have to notable. From WP:Notability: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." --Timeshifter (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked you two times already, I'll ask a third time: There is MacDonald's but no "List of cities having a MacDonald's", there is Church_(building) but no "List of cities having a Church", (or I sure hope there is not...) Why not? - Nabla (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I pointed you to WP:LISTS. I point you to it again. See my most recent comment too, just above. Are you seriously asking if "List of cities having a McDonald's" is a notable topic? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Off course I am asking seriously. - Nabla (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you seriously think it is a notable topic for a list, feel free to start the article. I am sure someone will take it to AfD, and we can all decide together if it is notable. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The references to McDonald's and churches are not analogous to the "Occupy" protests. There may be many different denominations of churches, and many churches of each type in a city.  Each church or McDonald's the result of a spontaneous expression of dissent or protest.  Usually there is only one "Occupy" protest movement for an area, though there may be exceptions.  McDonald's is created to sell a product.  Churches are to serve similar religious beliefs, not reach a goal in the geopolitical sphere.  This is an inapplicable analogy, although it may be a tempting rhetorical tool. Sngourd (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you have an opinion? I think it is completely not notable. I would likely vote on that AfD just as in this one. What would you do? What is your opinion? - Nabla (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt the "List of cities having a McDonald's" would ever get created due to its obvious lack of notability. Maybe you shouldn't try to compare list articles that have obvious differences in notability. What do you think? --Timeshifter (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see List of countries with McDonald's franchises and Lists of church buildings which demonstrate that Wikipedia does already have lists of this kind. Warden (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your arguments for keeping this list are completely void. You have been pointing that the event is notable thus the list is notable. But, as you quite well explained, having a notable article subject XXX is not enough to turn a "List of cities having XXX" a notable article. You did made one point: a list *may* stand even if not all, nor most, list members are notable. Sure. Yet, the lack of a clear reason to delete does not equal a clear reason to keep. What are the reasons to keep? The guideline points 3 broad kinds of reason (and I agree with it): Development is *not* a reason to keep as the list points to city articles, all of them existent, all of them blue links - nothing to develop here; Navigation is *not* a reason to keep as it lists loosely connected subjects as there are immensely more about the cities than having a protest in a give day, this is peanuts in each cities history (my edit turned it into a navigation tool, but you reverted, so it is not your intention for it); being a Information source is indeed a possible reason to keep, but I see no information *of encyclopaedic value* (A list of countries, as was the initial version might have some - this one is incomplete (it misses what? 800 cities to be complete?) and too large to be useful if ever gets complete. Note to closing admin (or not) In the spirit of freedom of speech the protesters claim, do not speedy/snow close whatever the voting. Let the opponents speak up. - Nabla (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nabla. The list topic itself is notable. That topic is List of "Occupy" protest locations. You removed around 230 cities out of 250 cities (with around 250 references at the time). You only kept the cities that had separate pages for their protest; Occupy Chicago, Occupy Boston, etc.. See also, Portal:Contents/Lists, for many lists. Just as there are many long articles with hundreds of references, there are many long encyclopedic lists with hundreds of references. An item in a list is a fact just like the facts in articles. And facts require references. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is the list notable? You do not present a single reason. Also, if you have to reference each item on the list, it looks like you do not have a reference for the list. If there are no sources about the list, what indication do you have that the list is notable (note, the protests are notable, the issue is, why is a list of locations notable?). Note that an article with a average of 1 reference for each 3 words (!!! I've been watching a few os those, I think this one is a clear record breaker) is a bad sign, you do not have a reference for the list, do you? (It is not strictly needed, I know, but I am pointing to lack of evidence of notability and substantial coverage of *the list*). Could you please give one reason to keep, or else assume you have none and change your vote to delete? Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The notability is indicated by the 24/7 news coverage of the events by news media worldwide for weeks now. The number of events, the variety of events, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are reasons to keep "Occupy" protests, not this list. You really should consider voting delete... (joking) I'll stop wasting our time, thank you for your patience. - Nabla (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge with "Occupy" movement -- This is a list of cities with citations. Not enough for a seperate article.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider the impracticality of the merge. We commonly take lists into separate articles because they would become unwieldy with the root article.  With close to a thousand locations being reported, that won't exactly fit an article. Trackinfo (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This list is the most complete I have yet seen. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close, like for the most other similar request. Those events are notable, it is as simple as that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ASSERTN. --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. The VAST majority of comments on this article are to Keep and arguments are filled with well-argued cites to Wikipedia policy.  Do not understand why this is still an issue. Sngourd (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SUPPORT. --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and close, for reasons I have stated in comments above. Also, nomination to delete appears to be clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course.  In the face of all the "keep" nominations, I move for directed verdict and summary judgment. If this is ruled inappropriate by community, then as an alternative, Keep is absolutely appropriate, due to obvious consensus. Sngourd (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this AfD is grounded in an editing dispute. The dispute is over whether the topic is notable, so AfD is an appropriate forum. However, I think a snow closure by an uninvolved administrator would be warranted. I think the consensus is clear, and I don't see how it could change. Lagrange613 00:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can agree with call for snow closure, and reasons. I drop objections based on editing dispute. Sngourd (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What will increase the usefulness of this entry is an account of the number of participants at each event. The article has alrady begun to be transformed in this direction. A reference should be added from each location to one or more report of the event which indicates the number of people participating. The title might then change to "List of Occupy Protest locations and attendance figures" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamfreedom1 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The WP:Snow has fallen, the people have spoken. This artical has 311 references, the Occupy Wall Street movement is signifigantly covered by the media, regardless of weather or not I or the person who nominated this for deletion approves of the movement, this deserves to stay. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is useful to people like myself that are looking for a list of all the protest locations in one place.--Brookelorren (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Very badly thought out and worded AFD. Spam Magnet? That's the only reason? That is not enough to delete the work here.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The calls above for "speedy keep" and "snow keep" are absolutely unwarranted. There are several argued "delete" !votes, so what's the hurry with closing this without allowing further debate? Why silencing those who think this list is not notable? And it is neither notable not informative. Really, look at it. It's a list of countries and cities. If you click on one of those links, do you get any more info about the events that this list claims to be about? Absolutely not: you go to an article describing tat country or city. This "list" does not fulfill any of the purposes that lists normally have. It does not aid in navigation, it does not provide info that cannot be included very easily in the main article (there's no reason to provide an exhaustive list of every place where people gathered). As far as I can see, most "keep" !votes boil down to Wp:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, WP:MAJORITY, WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:INTERESTING, basically every argument in WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Also, several of the arguments against the "delete" votes are just putting up straw men. Nobody is saying that the "Occupy" protests are not notable, so stop repeating that. The argument here is about whether this list is worth keeping and, so far, I see no compelling arguments that it is. --Crusio (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "it is neither notable not informative." The scale, geographical spread, timeline of cities starting up, and number of events is notable and informative.
 * "do you get any more info about the events that this list claims to be about?" Following the references provides much more info. As more and more info is added to the list itself there will be less need to go to the references. Info such as attendance, starting date, event locations in the city, organizers, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Repeat: nobody says the events are not notable. What is argued here is that the list is not notable.
 * "Following the references": WP is not a directory. --Crusio (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * References are a necessary part of all articles, not a directory. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * References are needed to verify notable content. Your argument above, however, indicates that the "notable content" is the references itself, hence, a directory. --Crusio (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than repeat myself, see my first reply to you. Also, secondary sources are not a directory. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the village square or some other place for everyone to have their say just for the heck of it. It is an encyclopedia. AfD is not for giving everyone a soapbox or making everyone feel good. It is for determining consensus on the question of whether an article belongs in the encyclopedia. As I said above, I believe consensus has been established. Some "keep" !votes are based on arguments to avoid, but more are based on arguments toward the list's notability. I see nothing to be gained in keeping this open so a handful of editors can keep repeating themselves at each other. Lagrange613 17:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You believe notability has been established. Fine. But there are multiple editors arguing for "delete", so as yet there is no obvious consensus. What's the hurry with closing this? Why not allow normal democratic discussion? --Crusio (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't about everybody agreeing. The snow/speedy keep !votes outnumber the delete !votes and the nom by more than two to one. Then there's all the vanilla keep !votes. The consensus here is clear, and I don't think further discussion has been or will be productive. Lagrange613 18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what "consensus means, but I also know that it is inappropriate to close an AfD as "snow" if there are bona fide "delete" !votes. Again: what's the hurry? If you're so confident that the closing admin will ignore policy and decide for a "keep" close, all you have to do is wait a couple of days. --Crusio (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, legitimate concerns are being raised on both sides, and it is best to take our time in considering the arguments. We won't finish WP today, and most importantly, we're not voting here, so the ratio of !votes is less important than the quality of the reasoning informed by policy. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep no other way to keep the locations straight, list too big for inclusion in the main article and this is a very notable event, definitely not "low-profile".  CRRays  Head90  | We Believe! 17:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can the fans drop the speedy keep stuff please? The nomination was not disruptive, the editor is not banned, the proper procedure was followed--y'all knock it off already and find a real sentence to stick your intensifiers in. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I for one, use the phrase Speedy Keep in the sense of the ridiculousness of this proposal. Its a no-brainer. Trackinfo (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's nice. Next, go accuse the nominator of bad faith and disruption. And please write Speedy keep (disambiguation), to indicate that you can distinguish between policy and rhetoric--which, incidentally, lies at the heart of some of these disputes. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The pot calling the kettle black here. I expressed my opinion, which is what this discussion is about.  My opinion is backed by the trend.  This is quite obviously a lopsided debate, with a very small but vehement opposition.  If it weren't I'd be much more vocal. Trackinfo (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: At its current state it is not an encyclopedic page. A loose list that will never be complete; also, what is the criteria for inclusion? Is a 7-man protest in Ayr, Queensland (population 8,000) to be included as well? The page does not state what the criteria for listing is, meaning that anyone can make non-notable additions, with an link attached. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 05:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Immediate keep. Applying all replies above. But this article needs major and impactive revisions. Kiddie Techie (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep or merge at the very least If you want to create a table and create a more organized list, go for it, but deletion is ludicrous. 67.142.161.21 (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep this article; WP:N and it's a ample-referenced list. BTW, this may be of interest to those who have participated in this AfD.  HurricaneFan 25  13:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, WP:V, and WP:N. This list helps to indicate the shear scope of the movement.  --131.123.123.124 (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep this article - there are many journalists struggling to get a scale of the protests in their country, this is very useful. Plus it's too soon to say how significant each camp is - they certainly are growing not declining. This thread reminds me of a similar delete attempt on the page of Mohamed Bouazizi, whose self immolation started the Tunisian uprising yet but whose importance was most clear as time went on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.247.127 (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep Massively high profile and historically significant events. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment on SNOW As has been pointed out multiple times now, a "snow" or "speedy" decision is inappropriate here. In addition, as this is a contentious debate, a non-admin closure is inappropriate, too. --Crusio (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No Crusio, there has never been a snowier discussion in the history of Afd. The "movement too big to fail" has already been supported by global statesmen like Obama and India's PM, its set to lead to historic results like a global financial transaction tax which civil society has been attempting for decades, and this list article is invaluable for a full understanding of the phenomena. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Not sure what the rational being used for deletion is here. Ridernyc (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Nomination rationale is invalid and provides no real reason for deletion. There is no problem with this list.  &mdash;SW&mdash; speak 13:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge into main article and then go through the references to weed out the nonsense and promotional links. Frex, the reference for Myrtle Beach is an announcement from some local group planning a protest, but an actual news article (from a real newspaper) indicates that only one person showed up. There are probably more like that. I am pretty sure that nonsense like that was why the original nominator submitted this to AfD, because it is spam, and this list is going to continue to attract such nonsense.  Horologium  (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Notification - the level of abuse here has risen so high that I've brought it up at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - The clear weight of support is for keeping this and none of the arguments for deletion hold any water. Absconded Northerner (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep All of these events get coverage, and are all related. Its a valid content fork.  The other article would get too big with this in it, so best to just put it off on a side article.   D r e a m Focus  16:39, 21 October 2011 (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.