Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of 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 SNOW keep per the clear consensus and the fact that separate timelines of notable events are a standard operating procedure per WP:SUMMARY. If the timeline is covered adequately in the article itself at some point, then propose a merge. Steven Walling &bull; talk   18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of Occupy Wall Street

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not necessary given there is already a timeline in the main article about this subject. AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Presumably this was split for length per WP:SUMMARY. Given the likelihood of both parent and child articles receiving significant further development in the near future I don't see deletion here as being productive at this time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep — The article is about a notable series of well-documented events. Disclosure: I am a very minor editor of the article. --Fayerman (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SK before invoking speedy keep. "Speedy keep" is not the same as "strong keep", and "it's notable" is not a speedy keep criterion (nor a particularly valid regular one, per WP:ITSNOTABLE). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This nomination falls under nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question, looked at the file license at all, etc. If you look at Talk:Occupy Wall Street, there's a copyedit to-do list stating that "[chronology] goes too much in details about incidents and arrests, which can be moved to the chronology article". User:AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER states that "there is already a timeline in the main article about this subject", which is not really true. There's an abridged list that covers a few days, which should be merged with this article. This nomination is disruptive and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it. --Fayerman (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Default to Keep A timeline is not unreasonable. Clearly, to me anyway, WP's treatment of this event is dominated by those trying to promote it or discourage it.  A proper article will have to wait.  Deleting this article is not really helpful right now. Borock (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep ... per the widely cited essay (i.e., not wikipedia policy) called WP:RECENT, side articles are a good way to pull together quickly developing content that clutters up the main article, especially as we won't know what is important and what is not until perhaps months and years later. Discussion on the main article talk page anticipates that this timeline could become very long, and so a separate article is probably a good thing to keep for now. (Full disclosure: I have not edited this article series at all and don't really have a dog in this fight.) MPS (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Anonymous user here. I have not edited this article or any other relevant articles. However, a cursory glance at the main article Occupy Wall Street leads me to the same conclusion as Fayerman. There is a brief timeline in the main article that is far more fleshed out here. This article should stay. A quick search shows that many other articles also utilize this approach --small chronology in main article with link to full timeline. Examples are World War II with timeline page Timeline of World War II (which indeed breaks the timeline down into even finer grains by examining each year) and the much more recent 2011 Egyptian Revolution with timeline page Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.84.124.50 (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the version in the main article should be substantially shortened, probably to a single paragraph or something along those lines, but certainly not bulleted points. Leave the bullets to this new article. Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  17:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This was obviously split for purposes of summary. There is no justification for deleting a well sourced, articulate, and comprehensive article, list, or timeline, on the basis that an incomplete, poorly sourced version exists elsewhere. That's why we have Template:Main. --Cast (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep' this seems to be an allowed fork to keep the main article in summary style --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  18:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Conceivably the timeline will get longer as the story quickly develops and new cities participate, so that will result in a large amount of data which would be cumbersome to maintain on the main page. As a journalist, having this timeline set apart from the main article is much easier for me to scan quickly for data. Please keep. --Cicero in utero (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Cicero in utero
 * 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.