Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Press freedom and the Occupy movement


 * 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 Delete.Cúchullain t/ c  19:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Press freedom and the Occupy movement

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Weird list with an badly defined inclusion criteria. damiens.rf 16:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete While interesting, and probably important, this seems more like WP:SYN and WP:OR. The Occupy movement already has plenty of articles here, as does Freedom of the press in the United States. Important info here, or that would be added, should be placed there. Borock (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * SYN? OR? Seriously? Someone just invented the 52 citations, or pretended that they document arrests of journalists? If only half the articles at AfD were as well sourced. Anarchangel (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just said the events were important. But "WP is not news." Borock (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I would say this was of "enduring notability" (WP:NOT), if only because news reporters are very keen to report stories about news reporters. It'll be around for a while. The WP criteria for inclusion in NOTNEWS is sustained coverage, whereas "interesting, and probably important" is not a definition of WP:NOTABILITY. Thank you for your (sort of) concession, but dropping both the SYN and OR arguments up here without acknowledging concession, and then reiterating the OR down below, is very close to Moving the goalposts, and not good WP:ETIQUETTE either, although I expect this was not intentional. Anarchangel (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I am trying to be polite. :-) Borock (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well-documented. The synthesis has been made by Reporters without Borders, and their Press Freedom Index 2011/2012, including the precipitous drop of the US due to the Occupy media suppression, has been reported on by independent reliable sources, such as the Seattle Times, and even Fox News! Merging this information to Occupy movement or Freedom of the press in the United States would only create versions of these articles that scream for a spinout. --Lambiam 22:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those two links are not to reports by those media but to the same AP story, which notes that "Freedom House marked down the United States slightly". That's not a whole lot. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * SPEEDY KEEP under WP:BEFORE A#1. Nomination brings no case to answer (WP:DEL). For the sake of argument, though, let's address "badly defined inclusion criteria" (I will not address "weird", for obvious reasons. And it is not a list, it is a a timeline). The title is almost a mathematical fit with the content: journalists=press, covering Occupy=Occupy movement, were arrested=hampering their freedom. And the article is meticulously and copiously verified.
 * I believe Lambiam's phrase, "The synthesis has been made by Reporters without Borders" has a problem. WP:SYNTH is not relevant to a description of non-Wikipedians' activity. SYNTH prohibits WP editors from jumping to conclusions, not experts in the field from creating the testimony we cite. Anarchangel (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Locking someone up takes away almost all of their freedoms. Freedom of the press is such a fundamentally respected right that, because the press have been treated with enough respect in the past that the most restrictive practice of all, arrest, has not become as big an issue as censorship or protecting the identity of sources. So, ironically, freedom of the press is wrongly seen at this AfD as a term used to describe less obvious examples of protected behaviour, and arrest's restriction on freedom is termed "arbitrary".
 * Having seen that the topic is not arbitrary, then the remaining arguments are against the content, not the topic (content discussions properly take place at the page Talk, not AfD, where we discuss the deletion or redirection of the title of the page from Wikipedia). The content, it is asserted, is a "List" and "only news", both of which arguments have been addressed elsewhere. But these arguments are also, somewhat mutually exclusive. Roughly speaking, any prose summary of an incident long enough to be a news item is not a list item, and if it were a list, it would not be news reporting. These are instead, individually and substantially cited examples of police arrest infringing on press freedom. At the very least, this article fits very uncomfortably in the parameters given by WP:NOT' examples, because it is not about a single event. Anarchangel (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the United States becomes a fascist state then the article will be entitled "Loss of press freedom in the United States" not "Press freedom and the Occupy movement." Borock (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite. However, if this is intended to be directly pertinent to my statement in some way, please elucidate. Anarchangel (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Generally speaking, encyclopedias have articles about big topics. Freedom of the press in the United States is a big topic. So far, "Press freedom and the Occupy movement" does not seem to be a big topic, although the information the article contains is certainly of great importance. Borock (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Lambiam, as well-documented in multiple, reliable sources. Besides, it is plainly not a list, but rather a series of incidents written in prose.  Also, this does not fall under news; the text and citations cover several months.  Finally, weird is arguably a valid outcome at WP. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whew! "outcome" of an article, you meant. For a second there I thought someone had made it a rule to delete odd articles. Anarchangel (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Incidents" sound like news, and putting them in a series sounds like "original research." Borock (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * News stories are fine. They just have to be substantial, and of enduring notability. Blame it on the poor choice of wording for the hyperlink if you want, but I would be happier if you were to read NOT#NEWS again. And OR again, also. Anarchangel (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read both a number of times. I still think that putting together a list of events violates them.  I am also very concerned about civil liberties, including freedom of the press. As well as, BTW, sympathetic to the concerns of the Occupy movement.  There is a national election coming up later this year.  That is a better forum to express our opinions about these issues than is an encyclopedia.  Please also check out my profile and see that I supported President Obama last time. Thank you. Borock (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (or maybe merge to Occupy). The burden for the very existence of the article is the one report. The list of arrests is a list (calling it a timeline makes no difference) and it's primary information. (And for instance "October 1 2011, New York City"--2/3 has nothing to do with the press in the first place.) Maybe some of the reporters got arrested for pissing on the sidewalk--that's not restricting the freedom of the press. (I'm playing devil's advocate, sure.) Those events may well be the source for the report's conclusions, but that still makes it primary information, based on news reports of the events--not reports on the freedom of the press or a study of the impact thereon. So, we have a report by Reporters Without Borders, and a ton of primary events listed chronologically. That is not enough to warrant this as a standalone article. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't find the one report a burden. It also seems unlikely to me that reporters just wait until there is a demonstration to go on a crime spree. Anarchangel (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The article consists of whatever events editors have thought relevant to the topic. The criteria for inclusion in the list also appears to be arbitrary and decided by what an editor deems to involve "press freedom". Completely WP:OR and WP:SYN. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors decide upon and do a lot of things; that does not make them arbitrary. I like "deems to involve", it is very poetic, but unfortunately I can only guess at what it means. Anarchangel (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will also say that it is very clearly a list because the whole article is a list of discrete events. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But what do you say to Bearian's argument that it is composed of paragraphs of prose? And if you agree that it is about many events, do you disagree with the delete argument that it is merely news? Anarchangel (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Unreleated snippets properly covered in the relevant articles, used here as a strange POV fork exercise of no long-term encyclopedic value.  Also some of the sourcing is not actually WP:RS in the first place, or does not even support the claims made.  Vide  used for the claim "Two journalists were arrested: Katelyn Ferral, of The News & Observer, and Josh Davis, a graduate student in Journalism at University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill"  wrtieen by one of the "journalists",  arrested for obvious distructive "occupation" of a private building ("see Trespass), with the really big claim being A man told me that I “missed a pretty awesome dance party” in the space the night before, when they first occupied the building.   I rather think that an "awesome dance party" is not actually a part of a "protest" nor does enforcing trespassing laws amount to "opposing press freedom." .   When such cruft makes its way into such a "list", I suggest the list itself is cruft. Collect (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I reject your suggestion; an entire article should not be deleted on the basis of the nature of a single citation; but then, is that even relevant, as I also reject your characterization of the "awesome dance party" news story. I have an excerpt from it of my own I would like to share, which I feel characterizes it more accurately, and also has more bearing on the discussion:
 * "I attempted to step into a side alleyway while waving my press pass when a protester pulled me to the ground.
 * “They have weapons, man. Get down,” he shouted.
 * Sure enough, I counted at least five automatic rifles ready to aim at anything that moved. I stopped and hit the ground.
 * The officer who cuffed me was nice enough. Realizing I was a member of the press, he made sure not to damage my camera or escort me straight to the public Chapel Hill Transit bus being used to transport those arrested."
 * Anarchangel (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In short - you reject my policy-based arguments on the basis that you know how horribly the government has treated the poor journalists at the Occupy events who missed wonderful parties by people deliberately destroying private property.  Cheers - that holds no weight in closing this AfD discussion. Collect (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The original research and synthesis problems with this article are pretty clear and obvious to any neutral reader. Until there are true secondary sources which discuss this topic, this article needs to go away.  Alternately, it might be appropriate to merge some of the better-sourced incidents to Law enforcement and the Occupy movement.  -Scottywong | squeal _  17:14, 31 May 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.