Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of North American "Occupy" protests

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 - As many people have mentioned, WP:NOTDUP is relevant here. Though we now have an article about the Occupy movement in the United States, the List of "Occupy" protest locations list itself is too long to become what NOTDUP refers to as an 'enhanced list'. The relevant part of the policy here is such: lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, but building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list—deleting link lists wastes these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive.

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American "Occupy" protests[edit]

List of North American "Occupy" protests (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 is redundant to List of "Occupy" protest locations. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose - think a merger of the style is an approach we should do - because this is much easier to navigate then the big list of overlinks. I hope in the future all will be presented in this matter instead of the overlink page. One has links to city articles not about the protest per say (with the protest links eventually) and the other (the one up for deletion) actually list only the articles that people would be interested in reading and are about the topic at hand. On the page "List of "Occupy" protest locations" only the second link out of the first 40 lead you to an article about the protest. Its a nice list but way to much linking to confuse our readers and I think that List of North American "Occupy" protests in a much better format for easy of use for our readers. I see why it was made. Moxy (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The distinction for Nth America is a bit arbitrary. What we are sorely in need of is an Occupy America Occupy protests in the United States article (note that there is an Occupy Canada article). Also, the subject matter is better covered by an article written in prose rather than simply a list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Entirely passes WP:GNG. Also, per WP:NOTDUP, "...arguing that a Category or List is duplicative of the other in a deletion debate is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." The rationale for deletion in the nomination isn't valid, per this guideline. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That page talks about "complimentary" items that "overlap". This isn't complimentary, it is a portion of the larger list and there is no indication of why it meets GNG separate of the larger list. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • More importantly, WP:NOTDUP is talking about a category duplicating a list or a list duplicating a category, not a list duplicating another list. That said, whether it makes sense to split List of "Occupy" protest locations into regional lists is a matter for normal editing and discussion to decide, once you've already established that the parent list is appropriate. And if you decide that this sublist is not needed, then it could have just been redirected rather than taken to a full AFD. I don't see that the main list is so large at present that it's necessary to split it up by continent. postdlf (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See WP:NOTDUP. List overlap is not valid rationale for article deletion. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTDUP is for categories, lists and templates and not applicable when considering articles alone. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, as of this writing, it is a list. If it gets expanded, then it might not apply. — Moe ε 05:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is entirely a list article, and WP:NOTDUP is entirely valid in this case. The nomination for deletion is faulty, per WP:NOTDUP. There is a short summary of the list's contents, per editing guidelines located at Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists - Lead section, which serves to properly summarize the contents of the list. This doesn't make this list article in standard article format. It's a list article, period. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I noted in my above comment, you're misreading WP:NOTDUP. That section is part of WP:CLN, about the interactions of categories, lists, and navigational templates, and states that we do not delete lists for duplicating categories or vice versa, because those are complementary formats of organization. NOTDUP does not state that we tolerate lists that merely duplicate other lists (i.e., content in the same format, such as a category that duplicates another category). Duplicate articles (whether lists or not) are actually speedy deletable, per CSD A10. Now if a list is a split-off sublist of another list, such that it expands upon a section of a parent list, then it is not a duplicate, but if one list merely covers the same entries that can be found in another list then it is a duplicate. So your argument should focus on whether the parent list is so large that it needs to be split into regional/continental lists for size concerns. You're simply not going to get a keep result by (incorrectly) claiming that duplication is not a problem. postdlf (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination, there's no valid reason for the subset of North American sites to have another list as well as being included in the world protest locations. PKT(alk) 21:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's clearly redundant to have this subset as an independent article. It also failed to include Mexico. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another article has popped up at Occupy_movement_in_North_America.--v/r - TP 20:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Heavily referenced, passes WP:LIST and passes WP:GNG. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnecessarily duplicative. WP:NOTDUP deals with lists and categories overlapping, not with lists that are copied and pasted from a section in another list. —SW— spill the beans 18:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. —SW— yak 18:30, 8 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_North_American_%22Occupy%22_protests&oldid=1137997663"