Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We are the 99%


 * 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. v/r - TP 13:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We are the 99%

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Does this really need its own article? Seems like if at all can be mention in the main "Occupy Wall Street" Article. AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - There isn't enough info in this for me to verify the actual origins of the phrase we all know it came into the main stream with the OWS protests and tumblr but I thought I had heard it first, before the recent events with the group Anonymous. The actual origins need to be identified and sourced. If the phrase is to have its own article it should then be not only of origin but rather what groups use the phrase and what the political philosophies are, then the article is relevant because it captures the essence of the phrase and people/groups that use it.--IMGator (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - should only be mentioned in the movement's article, if it's even notable there. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep major internet phenomenon related to but district from the OWS protests; covered by many reliable sources. JORGENEV  00:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and possibly rename "99% movement". This movement is spreading across the United States to places far from Wall Street.  Coverage in reliable sources is plentiful.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We have the Occupy Wall Street article for the movement. This is just for the slogan and meme. JORGENEV  03:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically, that's just the New York City portion of the movement. -- Kendrick7talk 12:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jorgenev. The term, though undeniably related to the Occupy Wall Street movement, has become notable in its right, having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plenty of third party coverage from reliable sources. Seems to be similar, yet separate, from OWS. Sergecross73   msg me   13:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I have put the article into question a bunch of times since it was created and knew it would eventully be sent to AfD or at the very least a WP:PROD, however as was pointed out here the reliable sources that cover this slogan and can not be ignored. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Change the Name of the Article?    ok, But does anybody think we should at least change up the name of the article.     AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to change the name of the article rather than delete it, a discussion on the article's talk page through a move request can always be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge As the slogan We Are the 99% originated from the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, it should be merged with the page Occupy Wall Street as part of the campaign process that actually occured. The slogan is not a major topic on its own, and so should be merged. Kathmaur —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Merge - I don't see how are readers are better served by having a stand-alone two paragraph article instead of it being integrated in the main Occupy Wall Street article, where it would exist in context. When and if it grows to six paragraphs, then let's consider spinning it off from the main. LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One example: article about a "well"-known phrase versus article about what the phrase was referring to. "The world wonders" article has just one paragraph about the battle, because its not about Halsey's decision about deployment of his ships, its about the historical significance of that phrase. Just the same as We are the 99% shouldn't be about income inequality in the United States, or even the motivations of the protestors. All that goes in the OWS main article. When you get get sourcing like the Let them eat cake article, which we don't have now, let's talk about breaking it out from the main article then. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is beyond retarded, we do not use an encyclopedia for the promotion of political catchphrases. If there is legitimate, in-depth coverage of the phrase as a a standalone entity, e.g. Read my lips, I am not a crook, then that is another thing.  None of the sources address it as a phrase, they cite it and then cover the more general aspects of the Wall Street protest...this is the epitome of WP:RECENTISM-driven editing run amok. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I respectfully requested that Tarc reconsider the use of the phrase "beyond retarded" in this debate.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge no reason for a separate article here. aprock (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - There seem to be more than an adequate amount of reliable sources, making the movement notable in itself. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge without prejudice towards a future split, per LoveUxoxo basically. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as it has been covered by national publications. A merge seems unworkable at present because of the size of the Occupy Wall Street article. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - more than sufficient coverage in reliable third party sources, and enough content to justify a stand alone article.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Honestly, every single keep call here is empty until/unless one of them can provide us multiple reliable sources covering "We are the 99%" itself, the phrase/motto/slogan. The sources provided by the article are about the Occupy Wall Street movement in particular, or the rich-vs-poor gap in general.  Just name-dropping the term as part of a story on something else entirely does not establish notability of the phrase. Tarc (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no shortage of those e.g. and . Bear in mind this slogan has been so heavily covered it has spawned the "We are the 53%" riposte, which is probably now notable in its own right too Rangoon11 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is precisely what I mean. #1 is a writer defending his critiques of the slogan users, while #2 is commentary on why what the 99% label is inaccurate.  Both simply say "hey, they're saying it" before going into stories about the protest and what they're protesting. Fail and fail.  Anything else? Tarc (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree, both articles are inherently about the slogan and the concept behind it. There is only so much that can be writen about the actual five words, but the concept of the slogan is the subject of those articles and a huge number more. As I said previously, the slogan has been so influential that it has spawned the "We are the 53%" riposte. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With regard to, that article is just a literal discussion of the 99% figure. It is the analysis by a certain Yana Kunichoff, who writes for the New Mexico Independent. Useless to us, except for editors who are desperate to puff out the We are the 99% article with non-notable quotes. As per Tarc, the rest are pretty much the same. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Any discussion of the 99% figure is inherently about the slogan, the slogan is only reason the 99% number is being discussed. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not even remotely in the bounds of an accurate or truthful statement. If you are going to have an article about the slogan, then you need to find sources that are about the slogan, not articles about what the slogan is advocating.  There is a crucial difference there. Tarc (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect. Slogan identified with the movement. Neutralitytalk 00:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep More than sufficient amounts of reliable third-party sources. — stay ( sic ) ! 01:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Tarc's statement that "If you are going to have an article about the slogan, then you need to find sources that are about the slogan" is a valid request. Here is just such a source: Kopun, Francine, "We are the 99%", Toronto Star, October 5, 2011.  The reporter quotes a professor of media studies, an advertising executive and a magazine editor talking about the slogan as a slogan.  Of course, the broader movement is discussed as well, but the primary focus of this article in a well-respected newspaper is the slogan itself.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  02:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That scrapes slightly closer to addressing the slogan as a slogan, but it quickly trails off into the usual Occupy Wall Street coverage. Redirect it to the main Occupy Wall Street article; there's enough blurbs out there to justify a sub-section there, but not for a standalone article.  It seems that people simply want the standalone so that it serves as a platform for the movement's advocacy. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that's what we want, and I have never had a doubt that such applicable sources would appear in the future. But one, or three, such articles right now are prettay, prettay thin to create a stand-alone article at this point without it looking like a 3rd-grader's art project - all glue. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you bothered to look for sources yourself? Here are some.
 * E.D. Kain. "Outside of Wonkland, 'We are the 99%' Is a Pretty Good Slogan". Forbes, 10/12/2011.
 * Discuses the use, reaction to, and relative merits of the slogan.
 * Nona Willis Aronowitz. "'We Are The 99 Percent' Is the Best Populist Message We've Had in Years". Good, 10/3/2011.
 * Praise of the slogan.
 * E.D. Kain. "We Are the 80%, Not the 99%". Forbes, 10/11/2011.
 * Discusses the accuracy of the slogan.
 * Jeffrey Feldman. "Power in the Message: 'We Are the 99%'". The Huffington Post, 10/12/11.
 * Talks about how great/accurate the slogan is.
 * Kopun, Francine. "We are the 99%". Toronto Star, 10/5/2011.
 * Focuses on the slogan as per Cullen328.
 * Elizabeth Flock. "'We are the 99 percent' and the '53 percent' and the '9 percent' and the...". Washington Post, 10/11/2011.
 * Covers the many different spin offs the slogan has inspired and the relative merits of each.
 * "Conservatives launch "We are the 53%" blog". CBS News,.
 * Covers disagreements about the accuracy of the slogan.
 * Adam Weinstein. "'We Are the 99 Percent' Creators Revealed". Mother Jones, 10/7/2011.
 * Covers how the meme got started on the internet.
 * Phoebe Connelly. "Understanding ‘We Are the 99 Percent’". Yahoo! News, 10/11/2011.
 * Entirely about the slogan.
 * Rich Lowry. "Heed the 99 Percent". National Review, 10/14/2011.
 * Talks about a few of the "we are the 99% stories.
 * John Carney. "Conservatives Respond to 'We Are 99%'". CNBC, 10/12/2011.
 * Covers criticism of the slogan.
 * Shaila Dewan. "99 Percenters and 53 Percenters Face Off". New York Times, 10/11/2011.
 * More about the merits of the slogan.
 * Danny Westneat. "'99 percent' protesters' math doesn't add up". Seattle Times, 10/11/2011.
 * Criticizes the slogan.
 * Josh Barro. "We Are the 99 Percent—Even Rich People". National Review, 10/12/2011.
 * More about the merits of the slogan.
 * Rebecca J. Rosen. "The 99 Percent Tumblr: Self-Service History". The Atlantic, 10/10/2011.
 * About the spread of the slogan on the internet.
 * Kevin Lincoln. "WE ARE THE 99 PERCENT: Stories Of American Disillusionment". Business Insider, 10/4/2011.
 * Some examples of the meme.
 * Ezra Klein. "Who are the 99 percent?". Washington Post, 10/04/2011.
 * Sarah Kliff. "Who are the 99 percent? Part 2". Washington Post, 10/04/2011.
 * Discussion of the demographics of those posting "we are the 99%" pictures on the internet.
 * "Buried Treasure: 99% vs 1%". San Francisco Chronicle, 10/6/2011.
 * About how the author discovered the tumblr.
 * I don't understand why some people are fighting so hard to have this topic deleted and merged. Is it because if the content was merged away into Occupy Wall Street the criticism of the slogan could justifiably be removed or seriously whittled down as extraneous? Given a review Special:Contributions such a hypothesis would seem to have some support. JORGENEV  04:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply The article that you are intending to write with the above sources is good Wikinews article, and a bad encyclopedic article. No one ever doubted you can find thousands of (literally) news articles defining "this is what 'we are the 99%' means", because its the internet is full of people like Nona Willis Aronowitz et al who have an opinion. Historical context and meta-analysis in secondary sources ("The phrase 'we are the 99%' was generally accepted to refer to") takes time. LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment / Merge I would encourage a merge, but not to the Occupy Wall Street page. While important to that page as the site of origin for the phrase, the slogan has a larger significance for the whole "occupy" protest movement, and so should be merged into that umbrella page instead. --Cast (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It's quite clear from the sources given above that this slogan is extensively discussed and meets the notability guidelines. Silver  seren C 04:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The rationale of the previous "keep" !votes and demonstation of references (including 3 comments above) has impressed me of the notability of the subject in its own right, distinct from Occupy Wall Street. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 13:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP is not a PR platform, so there is no reason for a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.44.54.249 (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to the Occupy Wall Street article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per numerous third party, reliable sources, many of which are listed above. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename Referenced and Informative, however a rename such as We are the 99% (slogan) or something to specify it. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with the notion of renaming to We are the 99% (slogan); it's more specific. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per the formatting at Category:Slogans for these types of articles, perhaps the title of the article should remain as-is. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - There appear to be enough reliable sources to support notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Slogan has appeared frequently in the media and there are indications that it will continue to do so. yonnie (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect : to Occupy Wall Street. Mt  king  (edits)  20:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to "Occupy" protests (first choice) or Occupy Wall Street (second choice), with Keep a close third. There are sufficient sources for the slogan itself, but I don't think it has really become separate from the protest movement at this point.  The best idea is probably to merge and redirect, and then revisit the issue in a few months.  If people are out in the streets in the middle of winter chanting "We are the 99 percent" then it will be worth reconsidering for a separate article.  Neutron (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Commenting on my own comment: It seems that this is going to be a "keep" and I don't really have a problem with that, but the article really needs some rewriting -- I just put a "clarify" tag in the intro but that's only one of the problems.  It think it also needs to be expanded, based on the sources.  For example, the protests are still going on, but is this still the main slogan?  Or have they moved on to something else?  Neutron (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It is notable on its own, not every use of it involving the protesters occupying wall street. Ample coverage exist, obviously.   D r e a m Focus  22:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - passes the WP:GNG thanks to the above hundred thousand sources → Σ  τ  c . 03:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per User:Jorgenev's sources ... I resonate with the idea of Northamerica1000/Phoenix B 1of3 and others to move to We are the 99% (slogan) ... because this article is about the slogan itself and not necessarily have it be a "coatrack" to hang lots of analysis of OWS or its claims. It's no "We Shall Overcome, but it's something protestors rally around and certainly deserves two or more paragraphs. If you have to merge, I am fine with that, but the content is solid.  MPS (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly rename for now. A merge may be justified in future, but I don't think it is now.  The Occupy Wall Street page goes into great detail about the nitty-gritty details of unfolding events, while this page is for some of the general ideas motivating the protests... AnonMoos (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep We need an article for the larger movement, not just for the camp in New York City near Wall Street, which should be geographically obvious. -- Kendrick7talk 12:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see we do have such an article. Nevertheless, I think the notability of the slogan isn't in doubt. -- Kendrick7talk 17:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to We are the 99% (slogan) or similar. As per editor MPS above, the failure to differentiate this article from others would likely result in the article becoming "coatrack" for a more general article about the Occupy Wall Street movement. Gfcvoice (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the reasons given above. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect as been suggested and well explained above - Nabla (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - This discussion embodies everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. Your byzantine reliance on a straw poll by random users - or some other method which no one other than a select few wiki admins knows or cares about - to determine "notability" is mind-bogglingly ridiculous. Personally, I say keep, but really, who am I to make a comment? - eykanal talk 15:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep and close. Notability seems clear. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you care to point out just what part of WP:SNOW is applicable here, or what your rather retract this naive piece of hyperbole? Tarc (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As per WP:SNOW, overwhelming consensus, well-cited, is to keep. Highly minimal support for delete.  Not just an "uphill battle" as consensus is lable to keep shaping out this way; therefore, appears to be a foregone conclusion from the start. Sngourd (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have no overwhelming consensus, you have a flurry (see what I did there?) of keeps that basically say "it is well-known" or "keep it is reliably sourced", yet few have even attempted to address the fact that the coverage is of the movement/protest and not the slogan itself. So what you have in reality is a pile of weakly-argued keeps that are about as sturdy as your snowball (see? another funny snow reference, hurr hurr) in July.  There are a significant number of deleted and merge/redirects that do not justify an early close.  So please, knock it off and just let it run its course. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, pursuant to WP:SNOW Not sure how many more KEEPs this needs before it's actually kept. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep User:Jorgenev's sources demonstrate without a question that this headword is noteworthy and an encyclopedic analysis based on reliable sources can be written. Current article state (such as WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) is not grounds for deletion, but improvement. --hydrox (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:SNOW is falling.  This is a notable catch phrase which has caught on globally, and as a result has received significant non-trivial coverage worldwide.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  09:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh. There are better ways to cover this, and less trendy ones too. But there are sources, and clearly a consensus to keep - which doesn't mean it's the correct choice, just that it's the one that we'll end up doing. I don't think WP:SNOW applies, since there are good-faith opposes - but I doubt very much they will be able to sway consensus to delete. So you might as well close this. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to "Occupy" protests. The slogan in an of itself embodies what the protests are about, and can be covered more in detail there. This should only be its own article if the slogan itself gains notability outside of or after these protests. Oren0 (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - well-known phrase; it's flurrying if not snowing. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Perhaps a merge with "Occupy" protests would be better once activity has died down a bit. -- GSK (t ● c) 20:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Deletion of the corresponding article was discussed since October 4 on German wikipedia. Article was decided to be kept. --LeastCommonAncestor (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep* Obviously sufficiently sourced for article on its own. de M URGH   talk  09:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Slogan meets guidelines of WP:GNG in that there is significant coverage, widespread usage of slogan establishes presumption that subject is suitable for inclusion. Slogans can stand on their own as historical artifacts outside events that created them.  See Where's the beef?, D'oh!, Sí se puede, Read my lips: no new taxes. Sngourd (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced, and important. The use of "99%" to refer to the slogan has a wider scope than the "Occupy" movement itself. For example, "Bank of America Blows Off the 99%. A reader trying to understand the reference is going to be looking for an article about "the 99%," not about "Occupy." And the issue of whether 99% is the correct number has enough detail already, and enough potential for expansion. to warrant a separate article. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. For all the reasons listed by others above. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Merge - To "Occupy" protests. This is not a well-known phrase, but still, it is still significant. Kiddie Techie (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Merits perhaps a line in the main "occupy" article, but not more. A stand-alone article really is too much. Given all the current brouhaha, this will probably be kept, so someone should revisit this in another couple of weeks when no-one will care anymore... --Crusio (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone is seriously considering waiting a couple of weeks and then re-AFD'ing (as suggested directly above) then I'd like to refer them to WP:DEADHORSE before they commence WP:POINTY editing. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 09:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What's pointy about my comment? the fact of the matter is when events are ongoing, there are tons of editors around that find this hugely important. Experience shows that in 99% of cases, once the excitement dies away, people look at things differently. Unless something changes, I bet that this will happen with this article. In 3 or 4 weeks, nobody will edit it any more or even look at it. And if I'm wrong, should it be taken to AfD again, ti will just be kept again. --Crusio (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying your comment is pointy. Just that if anyone were to re-AFD so quickly that it could definitely be construed as pointy (assuming that the result is a clear "keep" or "delete"). A lot of people have !voted in this AFD, far more than normal, so a clear result can be seen as a definite statement of the community's feelings. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 18:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Crusio, have you just said that "we are the 99%" is in the 99%? Nice! (oh! and I bet it is so) - Nabla (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this was indeed "pun intended"... :-) --Crusio (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Never give away your puns, Crusio! Drmies (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, per JORGENEV Aleichem (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced, and stands on its own merit. USchick (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep--I think this is a pretty clear case of a notable topic. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Occupy---Burn the city to the ground burn the ashes. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge - per Wikiskeptic. This is a slogan inside of a movement with questionable long-term notability.  Move it to the article for that movement. - Haymaker (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge First off, there's no real excuse for deleting this as opposed to merging it into the other article. The slogan has played a large part in rallying people around OWS and received quite a lot of per se coverage. It's notable. That said, does it belong as its own article? Possibly. I'm conflicted; on one hand, its long term notability and presence in society is subject to question (and so if the phrase entirely disappeared from the public discourse several months or years down the line, perhaps it's relative notability to other slogans would decline. On the other hand, maybe it should have its own page as there are several other slogans relating to various political movements which set a precedent for doing so. It must be considered, however, that these other movements may be of different scope or scale. so for example to compare and contrast,
 * Liberté, égalité, fraternité was the slogan of a movement, but it also influenced a movement that caused a whole revolution. Likewise
 * No taxation without representation also inspired a revolution, but was only ever, like this slogan, just a popular phrase used to communicate an idea, never more than that (yet precedent says that with enough use it gets its own page.
 * Live Free or Die has its own page, and it's never caused any revolution (it's just a state motto, and only a moderately popular one at that. If being a state motto makes it notable enough, maybe that's a blow for the notability requirement as many state mottos are quite obscure, nonetheless the war cry of a transnational political protest.)
 * Vive le Québec libre is an example of a slogan that has neither resulted in a successful revolution, nor given the official seal of state support, and falls under the domain of a broader political movement yet nonetheless has its own page.
 * Information wants to be free has its own page, but it can hardly be said to be anything but a favorite turn of phrase of a diaspora of separate individuals, groups, and movements which are even less intertwined and unified than OWS.
 * Flower_power is, I would say, a very similar kind of article to what we're seeing here. The slogan of a modern American political movement that did not inspire a full-on revolution, but did greatly alter the political climate, and a slogan whose use (though widespread at the time) saw some use after its namesake movement ended, but thirty years later is relatively obscure when it comes to using that phrase for what it used to mean. Nonetheless, we have an article for it.
 * We answer to a higher authority is a mere company slogan. Like the "99%" slogan, it's strictly contemporary. When the company disappears, its unclear whether the phrase will still see use.
 * Although wikipedia is not common law, and precedent does not always rule, it is important for us as editors to understand the context of what we are doing when we make decisions. Is this page not notable enough, and deserve to be merged? It's possible. But are there dozens of pages which have been allowed to stand on wikipedia of similar or lesser notability? Most definitely. There would be a precedent for keeping a page like this, and it would be in line with what many editors have decided was the best course of action before in wikipedia. -- Monk of the highest order (t) 13:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and if you want to use that as an argument, then why not include Wir sind das Volk, another famous, historical, influential slogan that went around the world and changed it. --Crusio (talk) 13:46, 20 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.