Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Marines (2nd nomination)

Occupy Marines

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Occupy Marines
• Articles for deletion/Occupy Marines (2nd nomination)

Occupy Marines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was previously nominated and there was significant support to keep. However, on reviewing it I felt that the reasoning of most of those !voting "keep" was contrary to deletion policy. Occupy Marines fails GNG in that it does not receive significant coverage, and the few sources that do mention the movement never do so separately to the occupy movement in general. The article is currently highly promotional of the subject (as can be seen from the fact that it consists mainly of a lengthy mission statement) and is a clear attempt to arouse support for it, despite the fact that Occupy Marines is essentially little more than a cartel of posters on twitter. In discussing this deletion, please remember that just because the subject of this article is real, in the news, has an admirable cause, is popular, or is related to another notable topic (the Occupy movement in general), this does not necessarily mean it is notable. Sorry to be pedantic, but all of the preceding were arguments used in the previous discussion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is the preceding entry unsigned? JohnValeron (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 03:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Basalisk, am I correct in understanding that this AfD will remain open for seven days of discussion? If not, please advise when it will close. I would like to express a preference, but prefer to wait until I've read what others have to say. Thanks! JohnValeron (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not a sysop, and so I have little bearing over how long the discussion will continue for. Deletion discussions usually last for 7 days, but may be longer. Please see WP:Deletion Policy. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong delete for exactly the reasons Basalisk mentions.--v/r - TP 03:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never before participated in a Wikipedia deletion nomination discussion, but would like to do so now. However, I must beg your indulgence if I ask questions that don't conform with protocol. You note: "This page was previously nominated and there was significant support to keep." What you don't mention is that is it was nominated just 2½ weeks ago. In law there is the principle of stare decisis, from the Latin meaning to stand by existing decisions. Perhaps Wikipedia ought to have something similar. We're spinning our wheels by conducting the same debate every 2½ weeks, and refusing to abide by a decision that a few of us don't like. JohnValeron (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a policy that says an article cannot be nominated immediately afterwards, but it is an unwritten rule. I was actually coming back to edit my comments to recommend nominator go to WP:DRV instead of renominating. Other than that, I support the nomination.--v/r - TP 03:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, there is significant coverage in the new stories directly addressing the topic. AFD is not cleanup--if there are problems, fix them. I note that the last AFD closed less than two weeks ago, if the closure is disputed, DRV is thataway, renominating an article so quickly is not exactly good form. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• STRONG DELETE The only coverage is anecdotal, and of passing relevance. There is NO notability at all. At most it exists, and it's had it's tweets and facebook posts mentioned in passing on other stories. It's had NO substantial independent coverage of it's own. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 72.152.12.11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• "In passing"? I see multiple paragraphs devoted to the topic in the listed sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, IN PASSING. You seem to be confusing quantity with quality. Considering the majority of those paragraphs are reprints of tweets or facebook posts, when you take them away, you're left with the actual content of the reporting. That boils down to 'there is also this facebook group and twitter page about it as well, and they said something'. You may not have noticed but thats the direction of 'news reporting' these days, to use such things as filler. 99% of the notability for this group is because of the actions of two Marines, who are not even affiliated with the group. There is NOTHING notable about them, any more than the twitter accounts which had their questions asked in recent Republican debates are notable. Actually, those twitter accounts are more notable, since they had a direct participation in an event that was widely covered, including their participation. The question is, how many articles are specifically about OccupyMarines? I believe it's one. If the news media don't find them as notable (perhaps because they've done nothing) then they're not notable at all, really. Just background noise, wikifiddling. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• After four years of heavy contribution here I'm pretty good at figuring out the difference between quantity and quality. I looked at the CBS, ABC, The Nation, etc. sources and I saw enough quality to keep this article. Your position that tweets and facebook postings quoted in news stories should be discounted is not based on policy. In fact, tweets and facebook posts are given notability if they are quoted in news stories. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to lack notability as such fails WP:GNG. Mtking ^(edits) 06:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note : User:JohnValeron would appear to have gone on a canvassing spree - see Special:Contributions/JohnValeron. Mtking ^(edits) 06:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

That's exactly what I did. I simply notified those involved in the discussion re deleting this article only 2½ weeks ago that it was again under the gun. I made no attempt to influence anyone as to how they should participate in this new debate. Are you now trying to limit participation? JohnValeron (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed that would be acceptable, but when you appear to only ask those who !voted keep and failed to inform those (for example User:Cox wasan) who !voted Delete it looks like unacceptable canvassing. Mtking ^(edits) 06:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I see now what happened. I overlooked both of those who voted last time to Delete. Please accept my apology. JohnValeron (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because you didn't notify the third person, who was cited as an example when you were called on the very one-sided canvassing? Don't worry, I took the liberty of notifying them. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• SUPER EXTRA STRONG KEEP The opposition to this page is ridiculous. To raise a second objection when there has already been discussion and a decision to keep the entry so recently smacks of political motivation. You repeatedly raise the issue of GNG. Instead of throwing out an acronym say General Notability Guidelines and then say this entry doesn't meet that requirement...

...now say it again with a straight face. How about instead of trying to detract from the available information try contributing to the entry itself. Syrmopoulos (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Syrmopoulos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Syrmopoulos (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

Toby Esterhase: "Peter this information is ultra, ultra sensitive" Peter Guillam: "Well in that case Toby, I'll keep my mouth ultra, ultra shut"" LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep There is no reason why this article cannot exist in compliance with Wikipedia protocol. It seems like people are attempting to disrupt the dissemination of information, without respecting the process of evolution. Occupy Marines is a concrete entity, as real as Occupy Wall Street, and any of encyclopedia'd organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.148.179 (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — 174.25.148.179 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong KEEP. Article does in fact meet WP:GNG. CBS news, Marine Corps Times, Business Insider and ABC News are NOT trivial sources. Are they, "tweets and facebook posts"? No, not at all! This entry also meets Significant coverage, Reliable and Independent of the subject Yes, that is WP:GNG. Also, this article meets Depth of coverage, Audience and Independence of sources. External links could use a clean up per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Planetary ChaosTalk 07:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see nothing wrong with JohnValeron's notifying interested projects and editors. Infact, this is allowable as there seems to be no apparent bias. Definitely not canvassing. Planetary ChaosTalk 07:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

no apparent bias - like only notifying those who !voted Keep. Mtking ^(edits) 07:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I explained that above. I overlooked the two who voted Delete, for which I apologized. Why must you continue assuming bad faith? JohnValeron (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• • The coverage in the ABC News article is trivial: it consists of a short paragraph that could be summarized as "there's a group that calls itself 'Occupy Marines'". The Marine Corps Times article is 404, so I can't evaluate it. The other two articles do have a little bit of depth to them, but not much. --Carnildo (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:WEB since there are no articles primarily about it. Shii (tock) 07:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't see how WP:WEB would have anything to do with this article. The article is not about a website. Planetary ChaosTalk 07:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    • From the article: "Occupy Marines (styled as OccupyMARINES) is an online entity". It has no real life manifestation. It is a website. Shii (tock) 07:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and Speedy close. The last AFD for this ended on December 1st, that 11 days ago! You can't just keep nominating something until you get the results you want. The overwhelming consensus was obvious. No sense everyone having to come and copy and paste their same arguments here over again. Dream Focus 07:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Addition. since we're going to have to go through this again, many of us stated last time that the coverage was significant to prove it was notable. [1] [2] [3], etc. Dream Focus 15:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Dream Focus (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

For the record, it should be noted in this stream that user Dream Focus, who was allegedly "canvassed," removed the foregoing accusatory template, commenting in revision history: "There is no possible justification to have that there." Nevertheless, user Mtking reverted Dream Focus's change, insistently assuming my bad faith even though I've repeatedly explained that in my notifications I mistakenly overlooked two who had voted to Delete, and for which I apologized. User Mtking is waging a vendetta against me out of spiteful pettiness, and will not be deterred even by those who he falsely claims have been victimized. JohnValeron (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Please leave "personal vendettas" out of this; let's stick to the deletion discussion. I'd just like to answer Dream Focus' concerns: I nominated the article after it came to my attention at ANI. I wasn't a part of the original deletion discussion, but when I read it it was clear that the decision to close as keep was faulty, as virtually all the "keep" !votes were based on the faulty arguments I discussed in the introduction, and so I decided that a new discussion was appropriate. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so let's deal with those sources, Dream_Focus. Business insider piece (your link 1) deals with the topic. It does hwoever, mostly parrot a primary source, with no verified details. It basically copies and pastes the website and social media sites of the 'group'. Clearly BusinessInsider didn't think they were notable enough to spend any time speaking to or researching. the CBS link is likewise, but half the article talks about Sgt. Thomas. Finally, the Nation piece you reference has it mentioned in one Paragraph of 16, and again it's a website quote. The thing they have in common is that there was no substantive reporting, only parroting off social media. The only clear inference is that those sources you're quoting didn't find the group notable beyond being a reactionary internet protest group. Are you going to write pages for all the other facebook protest groups out there? If so, start with the 'put facebook as it was' groups, they're a LOT more popular, and have had a lot more mention over the past 5 years in the news, where some Original Reporting has been done by a media that considers THAT notable enough to do it. End of the day, they're a footnote tacked onto Olsen and Thomas, of fleeting interest as a story side-note, and nothing more. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't like how they cover it, and you mistakenly believe your personal opinion matters. Many people might object to anything in the newspaper they don't agree with, but that isn't how Wikipedia works. These are reliable sources, and they have given significant coverage to this. The CBS news article [4] is specifically about this organization, as is Business Insider's. And while the article in The Nation didn't mention "Occupy Marines" by name until they end, they did talk about them. There are other places mentioning them as well of course, [5], but I believe this is enough. Dream Focus 17:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete; appears to fall short of the GNG. Also, I'm usually wary of playing the recentism or notnews card, but does anybody really believe this is a topic of enduring importance, rather than just a me-too facebook group following in the wake of other - more notable - recent events? Plus, microstubs on controversial political topics tend to be a magnet for problematic editing... bobrayner (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or DRV - the article as written lacks evidence of Notability, with weak citations (and a broken one), and there is worrying evidence of canvassing in the previous AfD. The tone of the article is essentially marketing a political movement. A DRV would seem to be absolutely in order. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The canvassing for keep votes is a serious concern; it's a shame to see another AfD turn sour. bobrayner (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Except there was no canvassing. JohnValeron (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Here is the Occupy Marines official website Planetary ChaosTalk 08:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • A wordpress blog! Surely the cornerstone of any truly notable organisation. bobrayner (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Except it's not a WordPress blog. JohnValeron (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• • bobrayner, the official website meets WP:ELOFFICIAL. JohnValeron, it shows up for me. Also for Marine Corps Times. I'm not seeing 404 error. If you seen a 404, try clearing your cache . Here is a snippet of what it say's, By Jon R. Anderson - Staff writer Posted : Friday Nov 18, 2011 15:03:24 EST Former Army Spc. Jorge Gonzalez said he’s not proud of his participation in what he calls the occupation of Iraq. But he’s now doing everything he can to help the Occupy Wall Street movement. Also, if you search the site, you get this. Planetary ChaosTalk 08:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

JohnValeron, in case you hadn't previously noticed, the website has the wordpress toolbar, a generic blog structure, and "Proudly powered by WordPress" at the bottom. Although it's conceivable that somebody might arrange a serious CMS and then make it look as though it were a free blog-based system, that would not be a sane move for an organisation which wants to be credible. bobrayner (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. You are right. My bad. Thanks for explaining it to me. JohnValeron (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It does, however, have the look and feel of a legitimate web site, albeit a small one. Anyhow, I don't follow why it's grounds to delete this Wikipedia article just because OccupyMARINES uses WordPress. JohnValeron (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - promotion of a not notable web group. As per Legis's comment below, no objection to a redirect.Youreallycan (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Occupy Wall Street. Calm down children. For fairly obvious reasons whenever temporary causes come up, those supporting the cause fervently oppose the deleting of the standalone article. However, fervent support for a temporary cause does not constitute notability. It can't stand alone, so it needs either to be deleted and redirected with a small (and I mean small) comment on the main article. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Delete on the basis of the detailed analysis I carried out on the article's talk; a handful of sources make brief, passing mention of "Occupy Marines" over a 3-4 week period, including one stating they "were not available for comment". None of the earlier sources that mention "occupy Marines" in passing have done any follow-up whatsoever. A redirect may be appropriate, but the article is not. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• "In passing"? I see multiple paragraphs devoted to the topic in the listed sources. No followup is required to meet WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - the sources already in the article in my view enable GNG to be satisfied. Very disappointing that another AfD has been opened up so soon. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. This looks like "Occupy Wikipedia" to me. It is described as an "online entity", but a google news search gives me only three hits, none of them related to this "entity". Is just a wordpress blog and fails NWEB. Reminder to the keep voters: it is not the votes that are counted in an Afd, but the number of policy based arguments that support the article or not. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• STRONG keep The joining of the OccupyMARINES to the Occupy-movement is a HIGHLY significant milestone for the Occupy-movement! That alone should be reason for this article to stay and be expanded rapidly to do just to the significance of their existence. In fact, I will request our media team to do so. 11:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.204.103.94 (talk)

This says it all. All my concerns about this article summed up in one comment – this article is just a publicity stunt for an online group of protesters. Just because this article exists and is related to the Occupy Movement, this does not confer notability. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• More canvassing Which one of you posted a link to this AfD on the Facebook group? bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean. Yeah I agree with MakeSense. This does seem like an Occupy Wikipedia discussion, but I've found sources on this topic on ABC News, BusinessInsider #1, #2, and CBSNews. The fact is that this topic has enough to coverage to qualify as its own article, yet still keep a section on the Occupy movement page. I'm getting the feeling from what I'm reading that that more coverage will be in the future so a separate article is appropriate.Silent Bob (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This is still just a handful of news articles, most of which mention Occupy Marines in passing. As for future coverage, that is to be considered in the future, not now, as per WP:CRYSTAL. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"In passing"? I see multiple paragraphs devoted to the topic in the listed sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, but close There should be no need for a discussion on this. Several notable news sources have covered the topic extensively. If this article is deleted, then Occupy Wall Street should be as well. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 12:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Surely you mean "Severala handful of notable news sources have covered the topic extensivelymention Occupy Marines in passing. Your argument that if this is deleted, Occupy Wall Street should also be deleted is a classic example of a logical fallacy and has no bearing on this discussion. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, Citizen journalism through blogging is a verifiable source. People submit videos, and the mainstream media uses these as well. If people are concerned about bias in an article, it can be edited, it need not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Challenging Duelism (talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• The vast majority of blogs are not credible sources. Your mention of user-submitted videos is misleading, no videos of members of Occupy Marines have been posted— they have attempted to piggy-back on ex-servicemen being videoed at Occupy protests who have zero affiliation with their website. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the above "parachuted-in" remark about blogs and videos, virtually all keep arguments put forward so-far break down as-follows:

1. "significant coverage in the news articles directly addressing the topic" (WP:GNG/General Notability).

   False. In actuality, a handful of source mention this as an aside in articles on veterans' participation in the wider OWS movement. None of the named ex-military in those cited articles have espoused any association whatsoever with Occupy Marines. It is those individuals are the main focus of reliable sources cited to support this article's continued existence. Remove those cites, and all arguments to keep this fall apart.

2. "Occupy Marines is a concrete entity, as real as Occupy Wall Street".

   False. Occupy Marines have not been seen at-all in the real world, and self-describe as an online entity. Not to mention their interaction with the media: "not been able to secure an interview with members of Occupy Marines despite numerous requests."—Camp Pendleton Patch, "a Facebook support group that did not respond to calls"—USA Today.

3. "it meets WP:ELOFFICIAL".

   False. The second requirement listed there includes the prerequisite that the "subject is notable"; that is, to put it conservatively, in doubt.

That's it, that is every single one of the arguments given for the retention of this–and none of them hold water. I assume the remainder of the 'keep' side of the discussion will be Argumentum ad populum, Argumentum verbosium, Plurium interrogationum, and a side-order of the Chewbacca defense, no?

But nevermind, the drones will be in from Facebook and Twitter soon to try and stack the vote. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect - we don't need articles for every occupy location. Unless something important happened there (major violence making national news, extremely large size, etc), the occupy articles could stand to be merged/pruned. My own city has about ten people a day occupying it. The local news has covered them - do we really need an article? --B (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the most sensible suggestion yet. A redirect/merge would be a good outcome. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• comment - (note - you can only vote once - second vote removed by User:Youreallycan) - I am sick of seeing the word canvasing tossed around in this discussion. I feel very strongly that this article should be kept, and should not simply become another redirect. If anything those opposed to keeping this article have done some canvasing of their own. I base this opinion on a clear distinct change in the tone of discussion. DO NOT LET THE VOCAL MINORITY RUN WIKIPEDIA OR IT WILL BECOME USELESS!!! Syrmopoulos (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC) --->If you say this response was canvased you prove my argument.

A rational break-down of your answer for everyone else: 1) Keep !voters should be able to canvass wherever they want for this discussion, even on the facebook page; 2) There are more people arguing to delete than last time, therefore delete !voters must have been canvassing; 3) I think this article should be kept (for no stated reason). Do you even have an argument for why this article should be kept? As for your last statement, please see WP:DEMOCRACY. This has nothing to do with majorities and minorities.Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for implying that people can't read on their own, but since you feel the need to explain what YOU THINK I MEAN let me help. 1) I don't have a problem with canvasing 2) I think those opposed to this article are hypocrites for "accusing" others of canvasing while at the same time clearly doing it themselves 3) I will say it again IF YOU USE THE WORDS GENERAL NOTABILITY GUIDELINES instead of throwing around acronyms, it begs the question "How does this NOT meet those guidelines?" ALL OPPOSITION TO THIS ARTICLE IS PURELY POLITICAL AND THINLY VEILED!!! Syrmopoulos (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This argument is absurd. Whether or not you have a problem with canvassing, it is not permitted on wikipedia. In terms of delete !voters canvassing, the only evidence you have provided for that is "they must have been canvassing, because there are other people !voting delete". You haven't provided a single diff. I can't speak for other editors, but as the nominator I can confirm that the only place I have mentioned this discussion other than at AfD is at the ANI discussion mentioned in the notice at the top of the page. Acronyms are perfectly allowable, and as per linking guidelines I wikilinked the first instance of the usage of "GNG" in the introduction.

With regards to GNG, this article does not meet those guidelines. The news articles provided by keep voters either mention Occupy Marines in passing, or are news articles simply documenting the presence of veterans at the Occupy movement being misconstrued as articles distinctly covering OccupyMARINES. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

With multiple paragraphs devoted to the topic in the listed sources, your observation is incorrect that the topic is covered only in passing. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect, probably to Occupy Wall Street unless there's a better target that I'm overlooking. There is some reliable source coverage, but it doesn't look that significant, so I think it would be better to include it on a larger page. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I think one of the fundamental issues here is that sources referring to the presence of veterans or marines at Occupy movements are being confused with sources actually documenting the OccupyMARINES movement. Just because a news article mentions that there are veterans present at an Occupy movement, this does not mean that a cabal of twitter posters called OccupyMARINES is notable. For example, I could provide several sources documenting the presence of ethnic Native Americans living in London, but this wouldn't make a facebook group called !NativesinLondon! notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: My arguments for keeping the article have not changed in the last 3 weeks. Even the attempt to refute the arguments for keeping rely on news reports about Occupy Marines, which seems to self-refute the idea that the group fails to meet notability requirements. Nor are concerns about the article's current POV grounds for deletion: if Basalisk feels it favors the group rather than give a neutral presentation, they are free -- and encouraged! -- to improve the article.Holzman-Tweed (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please reproduce those reasons here? Thanks Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability is clear, claims of flawed writing on the page are cause for rewrite, not deletion, no valid and substantiated cause for deletion has been stated. You yourself assert there isn't "enough" secondary source coverage to show notability, I assert there is. GNG itself declines to name a quantitative threshold of sources, and you have not provided any basis for how you decide what "enough" sources is.Holzman-Tweed (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, Covering the facts in a NPOV way. "OccupyMarines is an online group of unknown backing. They have a facebook page, twitter feed and their own website, and claim to support Marines involved with the occupy protests" That's the article written in a NPOV manner, using all the FACTS that are known. Anything beyond that is speculation or self-sourced. Or are you privy to additional facts from secondary sources? That is, after all ,the major issue. There are no facts, because there's no secondary sources, because it's not notable. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Handily meets WP:GNG by being covered in The Nation, ABC news, CBS news, Business Insider, and the Marine Corps Times. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Being mentioned, and being covered are two different things. In those stories, if you take out the OccupyMarines specific content out, asre you left with a story? Yes. Is the object of the news story significantly changed? No. In that case, they're a tangential reference, one made in passing, and not the intent of the story or what it's covering. What you are left with then is one, maybe two pieces if you stretch things, and that's a far cry from the notability you're talking about. Even if we take your claims at face value, 5 publications in 2 months on a high profile event, isn't all that notable, is it? 72.152.12.11 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• You're making up rules! There is no test involving whether or not a news article is rendered unreadable if the topic coverage is removed. No, a news article can conceivably cover several topics of interest, each significantly, as we have in our mainstream sources. Five publications in national sources is quite clearly enough to meet WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Clear Delete. By definition, blogs are an WP:SPS and not considered a reliable source per WP:RS. Clearly these do not fit into the Subject Matter Expert caveat in the guideline; the comments about "citizen journalism" are clearly made in ignorance of policy. The "group" appears to be little more than a few individuals on a facebook page and does not meet notability guidelines. Per WP:NOTNEWS I do not consider this is worthy of an article in its own rights and at most would merit a footnote on the article dealing with the Occupy protests. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. How does SPS apply? That would be an issue if the blog were used as a source. In this case we have five arguably reliable sources that cover the topic of the article, so the question is, I think, just one of whether the coverage is significant enough to meet GNG. If a single person running a blog on a deserted island receives significant coverage in reliable sources, they are notable, and not because of the blog. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Entry is in compliance with WP:GNG:

• ' "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.':
  

Cited coverage is from credible organizations and specific to OccupyMarines.

• ' "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.':
  

CBS, Marine Corps Times, BI, ABC, etc.

• ' "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.':
  

Again, multiple sources, multiple authors, etc.

• ' "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator.':
  

CBS, ABC, etc are obviously not "part" of OccupyMarines.

• ' A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia.':
  

Not only does the entry satisfy one of the criteria, it satisfies all of them.

In summary, it doesn't really matter who's behind it, how many of them there are, etc. This article meets WP:GNG as specified by the GNG, itself. Keep.

Jcgentile01 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— Jcgentile01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The vast majority of the sources you're referring to either mention Occupy Marines only in passing, or mention only the presence of veterans (who have no affiliation with Occupy Marines) at Occupy protests. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If a vast majority offer one, then it's safe to say a small minority offer the other. Majority or minority, I think, don't make a difference. If the mention is there, anywhere, then it is there. Whether any of us like it or not is irrelevant; the entry is in compliance with WP:GNG. Opinions aside, this complies with the requirements. Jcgentile01 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I used the phrase "vast majority" to indicate that there is a dearth of appropriate sources, implying that the article does not satisfy point 3 of GNG. There simply aren't enough secondary sources directly and exclusively documenting this group to make them notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is a reference for exactly how many secondary sources are required to make this group notable? (Edit: I'm sure a quick google search of "OccupyMarines" will reveal many more sources that may be used as secondary sources.) Jcgentile01 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You need "multiple," so the bare minimum would, in theory, be two. I think the question is the nature of the coverage. A "mention" is not "significant" coverage. That said, the CBS News and Business Insider articles are more than mere mentions. The other sources seem, to me, to be very insignificant coverage -- that is, the other sources are more about the phenomenon of military personnel/veterans involves in the OWS movement, and mention Occupy Marines only as an example of the phenomenon. But CBS/BI are worthy, in my opinion, and if the scope of the argument is limited to finding more than one reliable source covering Occupy Marines directly and in significant detail. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Jcgentile01, you may care to refer to the far from casual Google search I carried out, and documented, on the Occupy Marines talk page. The many more mentions that turned up are predominantly linkspam on OWS-related blog entries and news articles; the far-and-away majority of direct mentions in legitimate mainstream sources (which are in mid-single-digits) are a very brief side-note on either there being an OccupyMARINES Facebook page or twitter feed. Two of those more mainstream mentions of Occupy Marines go out of their way to highlight they tried to contact whoever-they-are for comment, and got none. Just look at the Occupy Marines wordpress blog/website, it seems far from unreasonable to assume this is someone who considers themselves part of Anonymous running another Occupy Wikipedia stunt. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"...predominantly linkspam..." assumes that some of them are not linkspam. All of this may be, but we're getting away from the original topic. This article flagged for deletion citing WP:GNG, which it does not violate. The requirements are in black and white, and this meets them. Jcgentile01 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I think some people are being overly hasty in dismissing some of these sources. Specifically, the CBS News and Business Insider articles are almost entirely about Occupy Marines. That said, I think the organizations notability is entirely within the scope of OWS. It has no separate, independent notability. I also highly doubt it has any lasting notability, although that is not entirely necessary. Given that we really only have good coverage in two sources (the other sources mentioned really do only give the Occupy Marines movement very brief attention; they're more about veterans in general), and given my other concerns, I think this is a delete. Definitely doesn't seem to me a slam dunk delete, but the nature of the organization and its notability gives me serious pause. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I managed to find this discussion after seeing the notice on the article (which unhelpfully links to just the general deletion category, and not here)... isn't it strange there's no link from the primary article? I created a link from the talk page, so that more people will be able to easily find it. Further, I did a quick google search and did find them mentioned on major news outlets... this portion of the OWS movement appears WP:NOTABLE enough to me. -Kai445 (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be my bad. This is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion and the process is new to me. Thanks for your help. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that, the link at the top of the article works just fine. I don't know what link you were clicking, but clicking the text "this article's entry" in the deletion notice is linked to this discussion. Thanks anyway Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, looks like I clicked the wrong thing. My bad! The talk page link still 'ought to help some folks. -Kai445 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Kai445, I slogged through 100+ Google hits looking for significant coverage from major news outlets. I documented the results on the Occupy Marines talk page, and I do not agree that they support a claim to notability. You will certainly see a significant number of other hits hosted on mainstream news sites in those 100+ hits, but those listed on the talk excluded, the rest are comments on the articles, blogs hosted on said news sites, or the news articles have had the Occupy Marines content removed post-indexing (strongly suggesting some of those mainstream outlets have decided, with hindsight, that Occupy Marines is not notable). --77.100.209.249 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The CBS News and Business Insider articles are dedicated to the group; they would not exist if the group content were removed. The ABC News and Marine Corps Times articles devote a large part of their length to it. Wikipedia:Notability is met. --GRuban (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficient coverage in major media to establish notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Not enough WP:RS that aren't primary sources or passing mentions to pass any sort of notability guideline. The only notability it does have is from the Occupy Wall Street movement. This is simply Wikicanvassing and nothing more. Lithorien (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The last AfD clearly established that the subject has recieved significant coverage in reliable third party sources and meets the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I've posted several comments and asked a few informational questions on the foregoing thread, but have not expressed a preference as to Keep or Delete. As stated above, I prefer to wait until I've read what others have to say.

Nevertheless, in light of the first 24 hours of discussion on this AfD, please allow me to offer an observation. The commenters favoring Delete have been consistently nasty and condescending, officiously spouting Wikipedia policies as if those were the Ten Commandments and the rest of us are unwashed heathens.

In particular, they repeatedly cite WP:DEMOCRACY to the effect that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that this AfD will not be decided on a vote. At the same time, they cry bloody murder because I adhered to WP:CANVAS and notified other editors of this ongoing AfD "with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Somehow, those favoring Delete have divined that my intent was to stack votes—even though, they tirelessly remind us, votes don't count for shit in this debate.

Without judging the substance of their arguments, I simply want to make the point that these patronizing and discourteous Deletionists reflect badly on Wikipedia's editorial community. JohnValeron (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this comment has nothing to do with this discussion and so I don't really see why it's here. But what are you complaining about now? Are you actually upset by the fact that there are people who disagree with you passionately? If you don't like the heat of debate then perhaps AfD isn't the place for you. Also, you might want to be careful about making broad personal attacks, such as calling all the people who disagree with you in a particular discussion "patronizing and discourteous". Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What the hell, JohnValeron? You are taking entirely too wide of a brush to paint those of us who are !voting delete with, and that reflects very poorly on you as an editor - not us. Watch your personal attacks! Lithorien (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep although i disagree with the occupy movement, it seems to me that this article meets the GNG standards and should be kept. --TheRico152 (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Visitors to this page, please understand that your input on this Article for Deletion (AfD) is futile. First Basalisk instigated this article's second AfD nomination within the span of just 2½ weeks because he refuses to accept the outcome of the first nomination, which was to Keep this article on Wikipedia. Next Basalisk autocratically declared: "I will not allow the closing admin to close as 'keep' this time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#AfD_canvassing. Since the conclusion is foregone, any attempt to further discuss this AfD is a waste of our time and energy. Wikipedia should close this AfD now and be done with it. JohnValeron (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the aforementioned discussion, an exact quote as Basalisk's text appears now is "I will not allow the closing admin to close as keep this time if the keep arguments are just WP:ITEXISTS" - a conditional statement that is not contextually reflexive of the assertion being made here. Regardless, no individual contributor has the authority to unilaterally predetermine and override the outcome of any consensus-based proceeding—not him, not you, not me, and not anyone else here—so you can rest assured that valid arguments will not fall on deaf ears. Whether or not such a declaration has been made in advance is wholly extraneous to this process and the debate at hand. Lastly, and most importantly, you should always assume good faith and refrain from reciprocating belligerence—be it perceived or real—with fellow contributors; such devolution is generally neither conducive to nor advantageous in reasoned discourse.   — C M B J   07:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 C M B J  , that is sophistry and you know it. Who determines, in Basalisk's view, whether or not the Keep arguments are just WP:ITEXISTS? Why, Basalisk does, of course. And, given his predisposition of this matter, what is the probability of Basalisk finding that the arguments are not WP:ITEXISTS? Try zero!

Since he is now on record as declaring that he will refuse to accept the outcome of this AfD if it goes against him, Basalisk will continue nominating this article for AfD every couple of weeks, as he has done in this instance, until he gets the only decision—namely Delete—that he finds acceptable.

Like I said, an exercise in futility for the rest of us. Using this obstructionist technique, Basalisk doesn't have to be in a position to make the final decision himself. He simply keeps gaming the system until it comes out the way he wants it to. JohnValeron (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

John, this is ridiculous. Firstly, if you can't make your point without misquoting others to skew perception of what was actually said, then perhaps said point is invalid. Secondly, I wasn't even a part of the first deletion discussion, so how you can say I'm bitter about its result is beyond me. I came across it after it was mentioned at ANI and felt that the outcome didn't reflect policy, and was kept on the basis of a bunch of SPAs showing up and shouting but it's true! It's true!, which is not in line with wikipedia guidelines. True to form, you then embarked on a canvassing campaign when the second discussion started and another posse of SPAs come out of the woodwork and make the same argument. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Misquoting, you say! Basalisk, you're the one who's doing that. I never stated that you were part of the first deletion discussion or that you are bitter about its result. Here's what I actually wrote: "He refuses to accept the outcome of the first nomination, which was to Keep this article on Wikipedia." What part of that is untrue? JohnValeron (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I couldn't be misquoting you, as I didn't quote you at all. You selectively quoted me from ANI to make it appear that I have a chip on my shoulder, in a hope to undermine my argument because you're scared of your beloved Occupy-related article getting deleted. Look, I acted in good faith. There's nothing in the deletion policy saying you can't nominate an article for deletion within 2 weeks of a previous discussion, and I felt there were problems with the previous close and so I opened a new one. I have since then realised that WP:DRV would have been a better avenue to explore, but there we go.

I don't have any personal interest in this or any other Occupy article; a quick look at my contribs will tell you that. But that will not deter me from seeing this discussion to its conclusion – I wouldn't have nominated the article if I didn't have an opinion about its notability. Reading your comments, one could swear having such an opinion is a crime. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not sophistry; it's an outline of several core principles on which this project is based. Again, the personal views of an individual contributor are irrelevant, because a consensus determination will made by someone independent of this discussion. When you object to the premise of someone's argument, the best course of action is to dispute, refute, and remain resolute. If you're correct in your reasoning, then you will almost certainly emerge exultantly, even if against all odds.   — C M B J   10:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please dont encourage battle ground behaviour by using language like "emerge exultantly, even if against all odds". It often makes for a better discussion if folk try and keep an open mind rather than "remain resolute". If editors are willing to let themselves be persuaded when better evidence is presented, everyone can be a winner. Also, if youre going to play moderator and take someone to task for a passionate response, it might be best if you dont focus just on a good editor like JohnValeron and instead also remonstrate with the more objectionable delete voters, who seem to be the ones who originated the aggression and despicable condensation that has marred this debate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

John is the only editor in this discussion who has resorted to personal attacks. You might also like to notice how the discussion only became heated after John posted several comments in the discussion for no reason other than to misquote and criticise a comment I made on a different discussion board (ANI). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as the notability of the article's subject was established just a few days ago. In this discussion (as in the previous one) I see many WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but, considering the sources this is (and remain) an easy keep per GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Notability seems to have been established, when full articles are written on a subject it seems a bit of a stretch to question GNG in good faith. un☯mi 12:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As even one of the delete voters admits, two of the sources are entirely about Occupy Marines: ABS & businessinsider Even if not for this, much of the delete arguments are clearly not based on policy. They've been arguing as though we need sources entirely dedicated to a subject in order to keep it, but WP:GNG specifically rejects this "...it need not be the main topic of the source material." After reviwing all the sources in the article, this important and worthy topic seems to have sufficient coverage to meet GNG several times over, so agree its an easy keep. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the requirement that the subject be the main topic of the cited sourced comes from WP:WEB, rather than WP:GNG. However, I see your point, and for the benefit of others in this discussion I concede at this point that consensus is to keep. I will not be arguing for a deletion any further. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)