Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to Occupy Wall Street


 * 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.  Sandstein  13:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Reactions to Occupy Wall Street

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've never seen the point of "Reactions to" articles; they always strike me as falling foul of NOTNEWS, since, well, that's what they consist of--news items. That's certainly the case here: we have over 100k of comments on this protest, a huge amount of excessive information. If anything is really, really important it can be merged into the main article, but when that's all an article is, "Person X said Y", we're not really dealing with an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – A valid and functional WP:SPINOUT and WP:SPINOFF of the Occupy Wall Street article (e.g. see Occupy Wall Street § Notable responses), which is presently at 188,600 bytes (WP:SIZERULE states that articles > 100 kb should "almost certainly should be divided"). However, and despite this, at the very least a merge would be more congruent with presenting objective and balanced coverage about the overall topic compared to outright deletion of the entire page. North America1000 05:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * NorthAmerica, you know that this argument is only valid if the content is reasonable. I know you are personally invested in this, having written or contributed to many of those articles, but we simply cannot have hundreds of kilobytes of reiterations of newspaper mentions. The "reactions" aren't notable, and amassing them doesn't make them any more so. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – I was actually expecting to say delete, since I agree with the proposer's characterization of many such "reaction" articles. However, this particular article is not just one of those lists of unimportant stock "reactions" released by politicians or governments after some world news event, but a mass of useful and interesting content that is relevant to the subject. It would not be possible to merge the material into the subject's main article due to its size, so I think it is a legitimate fork and should be kept. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But Tiptoe, so much of it is just grist for the mill of the talking head shows. So Newt Gingrich said something, and so did many others. What is the value of their opinion, uttered on the five o'clock talk show? I can't help but think that the entire Occupy coverage is inflated, and that the fish wrapped in those newspapers was eaten a long time ago. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I admit there is a lot of that in it (though given that the most important comments should be on the main article, having lesser significance material here is to be expected). I also don't see why there should be a separate criticism section given that the responses are already divided up into groups. But even if all the chatter stuff is cut I think there is still enough good content to make it difficult to be moved to the main article. And this article could be made more useful if it had more lengthy extracts from the opinions and commentaries, and went into things in more depth rather than just sound bites or generalities. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. As Northamerica1000 accurately states, this is a plainly legitimate spinoff. It's particularly odd to see a claim that reactions to a political exercise designed to generate public reaction are not worth covering in an encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2017 (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.