Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Homes

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

Occupy Homes

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

neologism. term not widely used. Content should be part of one of the larger "occupy" articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Occupy movement. Can be spun off to separate artcle if events warrant. Seems premature now. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC) changing to Keep. Since this article was nominated, the topic has been the subject of multiple significant news coverage, including articles in the Associated Press and Mother Jones. However, note that the MJ story refers to the movement as Occupy Our Homes. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Occupy Movement, as per above. One of the sources cited does not even mention 'Occupy Homes'! Sionk (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it appears to share the Occupy brand, it clearly has a different social origin and is using different methods to highlight a different, if related social issue than the Occupy <named place> groups. As to sources, news organisations are posting them frequently, several hundred at last count. Daffodillman (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the movement exists. The question is - is it in fact a distinct movement. As far as I can see, none of the RS indicate so or indicate the notability of the hypothetical separate movement. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - since this AfD began this group has received a very large level of coverage in third-party sources, more than satisfying GNG. The article is capable of considerable expansion, and the main Occupy movement article is already very long and not a suitable place for a merge.([1]).Rangoon11 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - What is the rush to judgement? This is a recent event, the article has existed for barely 4 days. You cannot possibly be saying it is a dead issue. I see 18 sources and can add more. It was the tease material for my local newscast last night. Drama will continue to build following that kind of exposure. Even if it dies now, it has had its run at the top of the news cycle and was a notable piece of history on its own merits in that period of time. Trackinfo (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nomination withdrawn - I posit that it was WP:TOOSOON at the time of article creation, but in this case WP:CRYSTALBALL was accurate, and the notability is now there. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your nom was definitely correct at the time, but the article is now amply sourced. You may be able to do a non-admin close since it was your nom. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; yes, it's part of the Occupy movement, but the size of those articles makes this a legitimate content fork. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:32, 9 December 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.