Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive stack (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 17:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive stack

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

Well over a year ago, this was nominated for deletion and somehow kept even though there are basically no sources to build an article from. Nothing has changed, Occupy is even less relevant today than it was in 2013, and there's no lasting interest in this particular topic that has provided information or sources for expansion. Should be deleted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources thought it was important enough to explain to their readers. The relevance and interest are not the issues. There are many good WP articles on less relevant and interesting topics. Borock (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced and notable. FWIW, many meeting chairs have long used devices of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and sourced, and written well enough to inform Wikipedia's readers. No need to return a solid consensus-to-keep yet again to AFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To all: where are the sources about the topic in which to build an encyclopedia article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies WP:GNG. Additional sources provided below --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- academic sources (from behind paywall, sorry)
  - Maharawal, M. M. (2013), Occupy Wall Street and a Radical Politics of Inclusion. The Sociological Quarterly, 54: 177–181. doi: 10.1111/tsq.12021
    - deals with it in some depth per the title of the article. the other academic articles deal with it in more than a mention but not to the extent this one does
  - Borck, C., Goldstein, J., McFarland, S., & Spurgas, A. (2013). #occupyoureducation. Radical Teacher, (96), 39-47,70.
  - Starecheski, A. (2014), Squatting History: The Power of Oral History as a History-Making Practice. Oral History Review (Summer/Fall 2014) 41 (2): 187-216. doi: 10.1093/ohr/ohu030
  - Leach, D. K. (2013), Culture and the Structure of Tyrannylessness. The Sociological Quarterly, 54: 181–191. doi: 10.1111/tsq.12014
- non-academic sources :
  - Sue Gardner's blog, The Nation, Wired, McGill Daily, Rabble.ca, Reason.com, Fox Nation (disclaimer: I don't know Fox Nation, which looks dubious, but included because it's part of Fox News) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sue Gardner's blog is not a reliable source. The Nation article does not mention the stack. The Reason article gives it (charitably) one paragraph. Fox Nation is not a reliable source. I can't see the stuff behind a paywall, so I don't know how much coverage those are giving it, but if the standard is the non-academic links, an examination of the available sources is not helping the claim that it satisfies the GNG, as there are not multiple reliable sources about the topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I assume you didn't get past the first page of the Nation article? I don't think it's fair to write off the academic sources based on an application of your mean assessment of the others. These are all coverage about the subject. I didn't include brief mentions. They range from a paragraph to several paragraphs and took me all of 10 minutes to find and compile. As is clear at WP:N, the subject of an article doesn't have to be the primary subject of an article for sufficient coverage to exist. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You're correct, I didn't get to the second page. That makes for five whole sentences about the stack. Trivial mention at best. You're not at all demonstrating at this point that the coverage is nontrivial. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of reliable sources as others have pointed out. With regard to the statement that "Occupy is even less relevant today than it was in 2013" etc, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Well sourced but not quite enough to constitute a whole article. If anything I'd see it as a violation of WP:WINAD--73.36.63.244 (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There four paragraphs of text and it's unambiguously explained as a concept ("a technique") rather than a word, which is what WP:WINAD addresses. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Giving that a re-read I was wrong in my initial assumption. On the grounds provided this article most certainly contains WP:Reliable sources and its relevance in modern times shouldn't influence a deletion request since it was at one time relevant. Changing my stance to keep.73.36.63.244 (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for rechecking. The best way to change it is to bold your revised vote and strike the original (strike as in <s>~~strikethrough~~</s>) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources in the article and those provided by Rhododendrites. Gamaliel (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per the sources, it's been the subject of significant academic debate and considerable study. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Trivial mentions in a few insular areas is not "significant" or "considerable." Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That you disagree with my opinion of what those words mean is interesting, but of no consequence to my !vote. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if you're using them in the Wikipedia sense, then I'd hope an explanation could be gathered. It's part of getting to some sort of consensus. Why do you believe that there has been "significant academic debate" and/or "considerable study? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it's strange that you're inviting links to academic sources. When I posted a few above your opinion of them was, more or less, "I don't have access to them but they probably stink". --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        My opinion of them was that the presentation suggested they had similar coverage to the non-academic sources. If I'm wrong, I would love to be proven as such. What you've characterized them as is, at best, "several paragraphs" within larger looks at a separate topic. That sounds trivial. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Four separate academic sources on the same issue is four more academic sources on a single issue than I daresay the majority of this encyclopedia's articles have. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The four academic sources listed above do not appear to be about the topic, but about the broader Occupy movement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem strangely desperate to discredit these sources and those editors who believe these sources support the existence of an article on the concept. I'll let the closer of this discussion make the call. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no need to personalize this disagreement. Hopefully, the closer of the discussion discounts the lack of evidence presented here to support the claims being made. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Considering the length of this article and the kind of sources that have been utilised, it may very well be more appropriate to me to make 'Progressive Stack' a section on another relevant page. The Occupy page or something on progressive politics. However, I do recognise that there might be some interest on the topic and, in the future, there could be plenty more to add to this article. I should also disclose that I am politically horrified by racial, ethnic and gender partition (I might go as far to call it segregation), in which I believe this policy is calling for. The reason I disclose this is, is that I imagine many would feel the same and the deletion discussion could be motivated by this fact. Johnwayne93 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2015 (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.