Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Wall Street

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close, obvious troll is obvious. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Wall Street[edit]

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

This page shall be deleted because of the unproductive nature that is awfully prevalent on the talk page in which discourages new contributors, as what I have noticed by looking through the archived "topics". There remains to be increasing hostility towards new contributors or established contributors all together who would like to update the Article, itself, either by doing a minor or a major edit to comply with the official Wikipedia Guidelines, and not the irrelevant and unofficial guidelines which most of the "active" contributors tend to consistently repeat to new contributors and old contributors alike. The article is filled with fallacies that resulted in the POV tag and has not been addressed on the Talk Page at all. This article deserves to be deleted for the sake of the credibility of Wikipedia, and possibly the opportunity of starting over with this entire project in the future. Furthermore, the view history of this article alone shall tell you, the administrators, that this article cannot be repaired by merely locking it up because it has been locked up, and nothing productive occurred. The writing, structure and sources that this article uses have been hugely disputed and been challenged but there has been consistent revert, after revert, after revert from users who act as if they owned the article, itself. This article hasn't been updated properly because of the attitude of some users, and their hostility towards new contributors. Joshua the Patriot (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominator is the latest sockpuppet of a banned sockmaster, User:CentristFiasco. I've re-opened the investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco‎. See here for the discussion so far with this user. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In all respect, this alleged case is irrelevant to the case at hand and is, essentially, hijacking the deletion case for this user's personal vendetta with the user, "Centrist Fiasco". Furthermore, this user posting a sockpuppetry case in a case involving article deletion is in clear violation of the rules, itself. Joshua the Patriot (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2012 (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.