Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Toronto

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 not delete. There is consensus to not delete the article. However, at this time, there is no consensus whether this deserves its own article or should be merged to Occupy Canada. Further discussion can take place on the article talk page if parties are interested. I do note that in the past, Wikipedians have given wide latitude to articles on current events receiving significant media coverage. (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Toronto

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

This has not been a notable protest. There are more media personnel than protestors, and the whole thing has been portrayed as a joke by most media outlets in the GTA that are not the Toronto Star Weekly, having no clear message and far less participators than anticipated. The other movements are notable, this one is a fizzle and doesn't deserve an article.

For example:

On Saturday or Sunday, the CBC showed up at the Stock Exchange for what was supposed to be a "big" event. Three people showed up.
The largest protests gathered less than 1000 people, on the first day. The Toronto Waterfront Marathon, held at the same time, attracted over 20,000. The Leafs game in the nearby ACC attracted well over 10,000. The Stock Market, that these people protested in front of, had more people working inside than protesting outside. This is news because its news elsewhere.ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 11:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According with below, I'm changing my nomination delete !vote to Merge to Occupy Canada. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's already been discussion about these types of articles at WP:ANI#Occupy?. We should be looking at the possibility of redirecting (e.g. to Occupy Canada), not deleting. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I thought about it after posting and it may be best to try and round up all the not so notable cities (aka not New York, Austin, Athens, where it is significant or where violence has broken out) into an article on the general occupy movement. Right now this just feels like a rallying call for the protestors, using the encyclopedia as an account of events that are participated in by less than 1% of 1% (which ironically doesn't add up to 99%) of the population in Toronto. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Occupy Canada. Agent 86 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also agree to merge with Occupy Canada DivaNtrainin (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per several reasons that establish topic notability:

Reliable sources present in the article— Passes WP:GNG
The availability of reliable sources [1]— Passes WP:GNG
The manner in which this is an ongoing event receiving significant coverage in reliable sources over a significant period of time [2], [3] — Passes WP:GNG, passes WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
The manner in which the coverage is not routine, and how the event itself is a non-routine type of ongoing event.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:GNG determines the notability of a topic, it doesn't determine whether a topic is worthy of an independent article. The coverage of the Toronto incarnation of the event is humongously influenced by the general Occupy movement taking place in many cities. The availability of sources isn't really called into question (dead-tree sources are happily accepted). It's been 7 days, so not really a significant period of time to determine the impacts of the event. And finally, I'd beg to differ on the last point; the coverage has certainly been monotonous, and the thing I've read in almost every new outlet (except the CBC and Toronto Star) is that there is no message and that it is disappointing compared to the US. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is some media coverage, but will there ever be enough content to destub the article? If I could think of a valid merge target... till then, reluctant keep. Something happened there, and seems marginally notable. I do however support the other editors who think we may need to think about some reasonable merge option. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Occupy Canada would probably be most appropriate. The combined coverage of all the cities would definitely be something that could go on to be a fulfilling article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A humorous side note. It's kind of funny that an ongoing event involving people in protests and demonstrations endorsing financial, corporate and social change is ~~perceived by some as less notable and encyclopedic compared to, say~~ up for erasure from Wikipedia, while much more trivial topics such as entire articles about episodes of the Simpsons remain. – link. = ) Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Events are still occurring, the topic seems to be quite notable at this point – (October 22, 2011.) "Occupy Toronto marches, rallies at City Hall." Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that. It's just that when these are going on in every city around the world, we don't need to create a new article for every city. The events are pretty standard from city to city in Canada. The article you just posted verifies everything that has been said. "The movement had dwindled earlier in the week to a rag-tag group of people living in dozens of tents and makeshift shelters in downtown St. James Park. During a demonstration in the financial district at Bay and King Sts. on Tuesday, for example, police easily outnumbered the three protesters." In all honesty the surge today was likely solely due to the ill sentiment the downtowners have towards Rob Ford. There has been nothing to set the Toronto event out against places such as New York or Athens. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The comparison was just a humorous anecdote - this article up for deletion while many other much more trivial topics aren't nominated for deletion. From the article link I posted above, to establish significance: "Approximately 1,000 occupy protesters marched to Toronto's City Hall just after 2 p.m. on Saturday to protest the cost-cutting measures taken by the administration of Mayor Rob Ford." Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and between the two deputations held this summer, over 700 people spoke at city hall, but we still don't have an article about it. Again, if this were a one-off event only happening in Toronto, it would certainly deserve its own article... But when there are equally lacklustre events in most major Canadian cities, it makes much more sense to combine them into one article when that resulting article will be more comprehensive and informative as a result of the combined information. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Northamerica1000. CallawayRox (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 has provided stellar reasoning for the article passing the general notability requirements (WP:GNG), but hasn't made an argument as to why the Toronto event requires a separate article from Occupy Canada, which covers the rather identical events in other Canadian cities. What makes the Toronto event stand out? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it gets coverage on its own, and because the article is filled with enough valid information that it'd not fit merge well with the other article. Keep, of course. Dream Focus 21:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Per Floydian - Haymaker (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - a handful of wikipedians cannot deny notability and legitimacy to these protesters and their event. That it be distinct from the Occupy Wall Street movement is also important. A merger would dwarf the event. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't distinct. The article already makes it clear its part of that bigger movement. Wikipedia is not an indication of the legitimacy of an event in any way. We are not the news, nor a news agency. We are not a content-developing medium either, and the opinions on the articles here need to reflect more than just the desire of the protesters. Again, what makes the Toronto event distinct from other Canadian Occupy events in Montreal, Winnipeg, Calgary or Vancouver? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep or Merge into Occupy Canada. While I'm iffy on whether it warrants its own article or not at this point, it certainly should not simply be deleted. Mnmazur (talk)
Strong Keep, per all of the above 'keep' reasons. Some small US cities are able to get away with a dedicated article with a few locally notable events. EelamStyleZ (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" Some small US cities are able to get away with a dedicated article..." - see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. It's not a legit argument. Neutrality^talk 18:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW. Any discussion to merge can take place on the article's talk page. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow is a reason to close a discussion, not a reason for keeping or deleting. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Occupy Canada after merging any relevant, reliably-referenced material. Neutrality^talk 18:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.