Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Buffalo


 * 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. Noting that this is a procedural non-admin closure, as per this edit an admin attempted to close the AFD but part of it had not worked correctly. Enquiries regarding the outcome of the AFD should be directed to, the closing admin. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  00:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steven, the only comment I was going to make in my closing rationale is that a lot of the keep !votes seemed to ignore the requirements of WP:EVENT for "enduring historical significance". According to WP:EVENT, coverage in sources is rarely sufficient to establish notability alone. Therefore this debate may very well be re-opened down the track when the event's significance, if any, can be properly assessed. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Buffalo

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This was redirected, as is proper for an article with so little encyclopedic content; the redirect was undone with the claim that such amounted to deletion. Here we are: there is no encyclopedic content, only some facts gleaned from news reports. There is no earth-shattering revolution in Buffalo, certainly not a "civil conflict" as the infobox suggests. These events, as important as they may be to the good people of Buffalo (and the bad ones too), do not warrant an article. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect per WP:EVENT: no lasting effects; narrow geographical scope; shallow coverage; no diversity of sources and the news cycle seems short on this one, too. Note I am not speaking of the general "occupy" articles but specifically of this article. WTucker (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This topic passes the foremost notability guideline: WP:GNG . Additionally, per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary, and once a topic has received significant coverage, it does not require ongoing coverage for notability to be continuously established. Occurrences during an event and the number of arrests that may occur aren't congruent with topic notability— topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, and not sourcing or content in the articles themselves.
 * I've added the following reliable sources to this article, which further demonstrates notability:
 * Graham, Tim (October 9, 2011.) "Protesters ‘Occupy’ Niagara Square." Buffalo News.
 * "Occupy Buffalo in Niagara Square." (Photos). WIVB4 News.
 * Asztalos, Jaclyn (October 11, 2011.) "Protesters are Occupying Buffalo." MSNBC.
 * Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There are no arrests; none. 2) According to a local newspaper, there have been only 200 participants — compared to Occupy Boston, it's nothing. 3) The article is practically made up only of a short lede, an infobox, and a chronology. The MSNBC article only quotes some protesters and Pelosi.  HurricaneFan 25  11:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a probable Merge & Redirect candidate, but until this current event resolves itself, it would be foolhardy to ditch information on a "Not News" basis. "There'll be time enough for counting when the dealing's done," as Kenny Rogers would say. Close this No Consensus. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that although this might not be notable now, it might be notable in the future; but as it isn't really notable (yet) we might as well delete it.  HurricaneFan 25  18:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Tis a bit early for no consensus, Carrite; let's wait until the dealing's done. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - There seems to be plenty of national coverage of Buffalo's version of this protest; far more sources are available for this article than a whole lot of other articles that have comfortably survived AfD. &mdash;SW&mdash; confabulate 19:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - only one "National" story has featured the Buffalo protests, from what's now in the article, but it could get more coverage. Sadly, Buffalo is not the city, nor the source of news, it once was.  This compares it unfavorably to Articles for deletion/Occupy San Jose, Articles for deletion/Occupy Sacramento, or Occupy Philadelphia, for examples of the larger "Occupy" protests that I'd support keeping far more strongly. Bearian (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, because I and many others clearly do use Wikipedia as a source of news. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for a Wikimedia project that reports news, use Wikinews.  HurricaneFan 25  14:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why do we have Portal:Current_events? --131.123.123.124 (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG. Although there may well be a restructuring of the 'Occupy' articles involving mergers at some point, that process will require considerable discussion and careful thought. In the meantime this article is in my view notable and contains important historical information which should not be lost.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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&#124; talk to me 02:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge - per Tucker and Hurricane. - Haymaker (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Northamerica1000. CallawayRox (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequate coverage found, let it be.  D r e a m Focus  21:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Very much media coverage, and adequate sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Clear Keep Very much media coverage indeed - 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) 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge. WP is not a newspaper. Wp is not a newspaper. WP is not a newspaper. Oh, I already said that. People, please read WP:EVENTS. If it weren't for Occupy Wall Street, nobody would even be talking about this one. --Crusio (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep, or merge. 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. But this article does not contain very much information and could readily be merged to a parent article.   Sandstein   06:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is still a work in progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.221.166 (talk) 14:53, 27 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.