Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Windsor (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. However, this should not be used as an argument against merging the article at a later date, if it is deemed appropriate, once we have a historical perspective on the Occupy movement. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Windsor
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Though personally I believe the entire occupy event was non-notable in Canada, I think in this particular case we could all agree - Occupy Windsor is not notable, except in Windsor. All of the references are local media. I would have simply redirected this, but in light of a previous AfD I have brought it here for community discussion -  Redirect merge to Occupy Canada  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep - CBC ran multiple stories about occupy Windsor and there were stories about it in news publications across the country (like this Vancouver newspaper ). The article is woefully short at the moment given the number of available references, but it was pretty clearly notable via WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE. I don't really think that the 'occupy movement' accomplished anything, but it was notable.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Every one of those CBC links is a local Windsor source, not indicative of the wider relevance of the Windsor protests with regard to the overall occupy protests. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how the geographic range of notability is relevant. If something is locally important, it's still important and belongs in Wikipedia. Wouldn't you agree?--Nowa (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. The fact that some remote village in Africa just got a water pump might be absolutely important for that village, but that does not mean it should be in wikipedia. --Jerebin (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So what about the Vancouver article? Also, any article that primarily takes place in a major city in Canada is listed on CBC that way for easy reference by readers.  It's still a nationally reported story.--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not a water pump for a village in Africa, but Windsor is not a village in Africa. It’s important in its own right with many separate articles on items that are only important to people who live in, or otherwise have an interest in, Windsor.  See Parks in Windsor, Ontario, List of roads in Windsor, Ontario, and Media in Windsor, Ontario.--Nowa (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The notion here is that we already have articles on the Occupy movement in general, as well as on Occupy Canada, which covers the protests in every city (including Windsor). Unless there is a particular abundance of information specific to just Occupy Windsor in comparison with the other local Occupy events world-wide (many of which have had violence or some significant presence), why split the information across two separate articles, requiring updates of both? Why not include that information in Occupy Canada, and work towards making that a very comprehensive article? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  02:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Lots of reliable sources appear to discuss Occupy Windsor distinctly from the Occupy movement as a whole. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I've finished formatting and adding references to the article now. THe sources clearly show and discuss the independence of the Occupy Windsor movement, with coverage from a number of different places. Silver  seren C 22:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is well sourced and clearly passes GNG. Somewhere down the road I have a hunch that many of these "Occupy (Your Locality Here)" articles will be merged into long regional or national pieces. There will be books written about this phenomenon, trust me. At that point, we may be looking to merge some of these things to rationalize the presentation. Blowing up well-sourced material now is not a good way to get us to that point, however. Patience, grasshoppers! Carrite (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Does every single Occupy event require its own article? I looked at the sources, well not much in-depth coverage, a heart warming story about a drunk drug addict turning his life around. Sorry but I don't think it meets WP:GNG and somehow I think people are going to embarassed in future at the fervour with which they defended these articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 02:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Each protest is unique, with unique events. Why just "delete" the information? -Kai445 (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? I said delete the article, if there is relevant material it can be merged into an article on the Occupy protests.  Wikipedia doesn't exist to document current events.  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This article appears to pass GNG. Carrite has the right idea, and I think that as time passes and the fervor dies down, the articles can be redirected and condensed into larger articles if necessary. It's simply too early right yet for that. -Kai445 (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - or redirect and up merge to a primary location (like one major article with a list of minor protests such as this) - we are being spammed with this news pollution by activists. Absolute spam. Youreallycan (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is not an end-all-be-all, and it states quite explicitly that just because a topic is notable does not mean it merits its own stand-alone article. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references support the independent notability of Occupy Windsor.  See for example, the coverage related to the homeless residents.--Nowa (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Occupy Canada. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:06, 30 December 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.