Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Marines (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 no consensus. This is a controversial AFD, but there is little evidence of a significant sea change that would be necessary to overturn the previous AFD so quickly. It may have been better to do a deletion review first if there were objections to the prior deletion discussion. causa sui (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Marines


AfDs for this article:
Occupy Marines (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 was previously nominated and there was significant support to keep. However, on reviewing it I felt that the reasoning of most of those !voting "keep" was contrary to deletion policy. Occupy Marines fails GNG in that it does not receive significant coverage, and the few sources that do mention the movement never do so separately to the occupy movement in general. The article is currently highly promotional of the subject (as can be seen from the fact that it consists mainly of a lengthy mission statement) and is a clear attempt to arouse support for it, despite the fact that Occupy Marines is essentially little more than a cartel of posters on twitter. In discussing this deletion, please remember that just because the subject of this article is real, in the news, has an admirable cause, is popular, or is related to another notable topic (the Occupy movement in general), this does not necessarily mean it is notable. Sorry to be pedantic, but all of the preceding were arguments used in the previous discussion. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 02:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the preceding entry unsigned? JohnValeron (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 03:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basalisk, am I correct in understanding that this AfD will remain open for seven days of discussion? If not, please advise when it will close. I would like to express a preference, but prefer to wait until I've read what others have to say. Thanks! JohnValeron (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sysop, and so I have little bearing over how long the discussion will continue for. Deletion discussions usually last for 7 days, but may be longer. Please see WP:Deletion Policy. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never before participated in a Wikipedia deletion nomination discussion, but would like to do so now. However, I must beg your indulgence if I ask questions that don't conform with protocol. You note: "This page was previously nominated and there was significant support to keep." What you don't mention is that is it was nominated just 2½ weeks ago. In law there is the principle of stare decisis, from the Latin meaning to stand by existing decisions. Perhaps Wikipedia ought to have something similar. We're spinning our wheels by conducting the same debate every 2½ weeks, and refusing to abide by a decision that a few of us don't like. JohnValeron (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a policy that says an article cannot be nominated immediately afterwards, but it is an unwritten rule. I was actually coming back to edit my comments to recommend nominator go to WP:DRV instead of renominating. Other than that, I support the nomination.--v/r - TP 03:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is significant coverage in the new stories directly addressing the topic. AFD is not cleanup--if there are problems, fix them. I note that the last AFD closed less than two weeks ago, if the closure is disputed, DRV is thataway, renominating an article so quickly is not exactly good form. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE The only coverage is anecdotal, and of passing relevance. There is NO notability at all. At most it exists, and it's had it's tweets and facebook posts mentioned in passing on other stories. It's had NO substantial independent coverage of it's own. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 72.152.12.11 (talk• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Yes, IN PASSING. You seem to be confusing quantity with quality. Considering the majority of those paragraphs are reprints of tweets or facebook posts, when you take them away, you're left with the actual content of the reporting. That boils down to 'there is also this facebook group and twitter page about it as well, and they said something'. You may not have noticed but thats the direction of 'news reporting' these days, to use such things as filler. 99% of the notability for this group is because of the actions of two Marines, who are not even affiliated with the group. There is NOTHING notable about them, any more than the twitter accounts which had their questions asked in recent Republican debates are notable. Actually, those twitter accounts are more notable, since they had a direct participation in an event that was widely covered, including their participation. The question is, how many articles are specifically about OccupyMarines? I believe it's one. If the news media don't find them as notable (perhaps because they've done nothing) then they're not notable at all, really. Just background noise, wikifiddling. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • After four years of heavy contribution here I'm pretty good at figuring out the difference between quantity and quality. I looked at the CBS, ABC, The Nation, etc. sources and I saw enough quality to keep this article. Your position that tweets and facebook postings quoted in news stories should be discounted is not based on policy. In fact, tweets and facebook posts are given notability if they are quoted in news stories. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANVAS: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."
That's exactly what I did. I simply notified those involved in the discussion re deleting this article only 2½ weeks ago that it was again under the gun. I made no attempt to influence anyone as to how they should participate in this new debate. Are you now trying to limit participation? JohnValeron (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Agreed that would be acceptable, but when you appear to only ask those who !voted keep and failed to inform those (for example User:Cox wasan) who !voted Delete it looks like unacceptable canvassing. Mtking (edits) 06:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see now what happened. I overlooked both of those who voted last time to Delete. Please accept my apology. JohnValeron (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because you didn't notify the third person, who was cited as an example when you were called on the very one-sided canvassing? Don't worry, I took the liberty of notifying them. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • SUPER EXTRA STRONG KEEP The opposition to this page is ridiculous. To raise a second objection when there has already been discussion and a decision to keep the entry so recently smacks of political motivation. You repeatedly raise the issue of GNG. Instead of throwing out an acronym say General Notability Guidelines and then say this entry doesn't meet that requirement...
...now say it again with a straight face. How about instead of trying to detract from the available information try contributing to the entry itself. Syrmopoulos (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Syrmopoulos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Syrmopoulos (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Toby Esterhase: "Peter this information is ultra, ultra sensitive" Peter Guillam: "Well in that case Toby, I'll keep my mouth ultra, ultra shut"" LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no apparent bias - like only notifying those who !voted Keep. Mtking (edits) 07:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I explained that above. I overlooked the two who voted Delete, for which I apologized. Why must you continue assuming bad faith? JohnValeron (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because AGF is not a suicide pact. If "I notified everyone who !voted X, but overlooked everyone who !voted Y" were to be a valid defence against CANVASS, we might as well throw the policy away, because nobody would ever be guilty of breaching it. You were canvassing – whether though intention or carelessness doesn't matter – so cop the plea, and stop trying to defend an indefensible action. --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are flat wrong. WP:CANVAS says nothing about carelessness. It states: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." That is exactly what I did. My intention was fully compliant with this policy. You simply cannot know otherwise, although of course you and your Wiki-ilk are free to make that unsupported accusation as often as you like. JohnValeron (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - if you insist, I'll support my accusation. You canvassed the editors who agreed with you. In your canvassing notice you say "Of 26 respondents, 24 voted to Keep; only 2 voted Delete"(an example). It is abundantly clear that you were aware of those who disagreed yet did not notify them. To claim that you "overlooked" just them insults anyone's intelligence. There's a less than 1 in 400 chance that that missing 2 out 26 just happen to be a given 2. The presentation you used in your canvass notice was not neutral, which makes you guilty of Campaigning as well as Vote-stacking in the terminology of WP:CANVASS#Inappropriate notification. If you actually read WP:Votestacking, you'll see that there is no mention of intent, let alone an exemption on those grounds. The description of "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions" matches your actions exactly. You have no defence and ought to be ashamed of wasting other editors' time by trying to justify your disruptive actions. --RexxS (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The coverage in the ABC News article is trivial: it consists of a short paragraph that could be summarized as "there's a group that calls itself 'Occupy Marines'". The Marine Corps Times article is 404, so I can't evaluate it. The other two articles do have a little bit of depth to them, but not much. --Carnildo (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Speedy close. The last AFD for this ended on December 1st, that 11 days ago! You can't just keep nominating something until you get the results you want. The overwhelming consensus was obvious. No sense everyone having to come and copy and paste their same arguments here over again. Dream Focus 07:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addition. since we're going to have to go through this again, many of us stated last time that the coverage was significant to prove it was notable. [1] [2] [3], etc. Dream Focus 15:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Dream Focus (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

For the record, it should be noted in this stream that user Dream Focus, who was allegedly "canvassed," removed the foregoing accusatory template, commenting in revision history: "There is no possible justification to have that there." Nevertheless, user Mtking reverted Dream Focus's change, insistently assuming my bad faith even though I've repeatedly explained that in my notifications I mistakenly overlooked two who had voted to Delete, and for which I apologized. User Mtking is waging a vendetta against me out of spiteful pettiness, and will not be deterred even by those who he falsely claims have been victimized. JohnValeron (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave "personal vendettas" out of this; let's stick to the deletion discussion. I'd just like to answer Dream Focus' concerns: I nominated the article after it came to my attention at ANI. I wasn't a part of the original deletion discussion, but when I read it it was clear that the decision to close as keep was faulty, as virtually all the "keep" !votes were based on the faulty arguments I discussed in the introduction, and so I decided that a new discussion was appropriate. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so let's deal with those sources, Dream_Focus. Business insider piece (your link 1) deals with the topic. It does hwoever, mostly parrot a primary source, with no verified details. It basically copies and pastes the website and social media sites of the 'group'. Clearly BusinessInsider didn't think they were notable enough to spend any time speaking to or researching. the CBS link is likewise, but half the article talks about Sgt. Thomas. Finally, the Nation piece you reference has it mentioned in one Paragraph of 16, and again it's a website quote. The thing they have in common is that there was no substantive reporting, only parroting off social media. The only clear inference is that those sources you're quoting didn't find the group notable beyond being a reactionary internet protest group. Are you going to write pages for all the other facebook protest groups out there? If so, start with the 'put facebook as it was' groups, they're a LOT more popular, and have had a lot more mention over the past 5 years in the news, where some Original Reporting has been done by a media that considers THAT notable enough to do it. End of the day, they're a footnote tacked onto Olsen and Thomas, of fleeting interest as a story side-note, and nothing more. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't like how they cover it, and you mistakenly believe your personal opinion matters. Many people might object to anything in the newspaper they don't agree with, but that isn't how Wikipedia works. These are reliable sources, and they have given significant coverage to this. The CBS news article [4] is specifically about this organization, as is Business Insider's. And while the article in The Nation didn't mention "Occupy Marines" by name until they end, they did talk about them. There are other places mentioning them as well of course, [5], but I believe this is enough. Dream Focus 17:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; appears to fall short of the GNG. Also, I'm usually wary of playing the recentism or notnews card, but does anybody really believe this is a topic of enduring importance, rather than just a me-too facebook group following in the wake of other - more notable - recent events? Plus, microstubs on controversial political topics tend to be a magnet for problematic editing... bobrayner (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or DRV - the article as written lacks evidence of Notability, with weak citations (and a broken one), and there is worrying evidence of canvassing in the previous AfD. The tone of the article is essentially marketing a political movement. A DRV would seem to be absolutely in order. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The canvassing for keep votes is a serious concern; it's a shame to see another AfD turn sour. bobrayner (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except there was no canvassing. JohnValeron (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not a WordPress blog. JohnValeron (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • bobrayner, the official website meets WP:ELOFFICIAL. JohnValeron, it shows up for me. Also for Marine Corps Times, I'm not seeing 404 error. If you seen a 404, try clearing your cache . Here is a snippet of what it say's, By Jon R. Anderson - Staff writer Posted : Friday Nov 18, 2011 15:03:24 EST Former Army Spc. Jorge Gonzalez said he’s not proud of his participation in what he calls the occupation of Iraq. But he’s now doing everything he can to help the Occupy Wall Street movement. Also, if you search the site, you get this. Planetary ChaosTalk 08:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JohnValeron, in case you hadn't previously noticed, the website has the wordpress toolbar, a generic blog structure, and "Proudly powered by WordPress" at the bottom. Although it's conceivable that somebody might arrange a serious CMS and then make it look as though it were a free blog-based system, that would not be a sane move for an organisation which wants to be credible. bobrayner (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. You are right. My bad. Thanks for explaining it to me. JohnValeron (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does, however, have the look and feel of a legitimate web site, albeit a small one. Anyhow, I don't follow why it's grounds to delete this Wikipedia article just because OccupyMARINES uses WordPress. JohnValeron (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - promotion of a not notable web group. As per Legis's comment below, no objection to a redirect.Youreallycan (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Occupy Wall Street. Calm down children. For fairly obvious reasons whenever temporary causes come up, those supporting the cause fervently oppose the deleting of the standalone article. However, fervent support for a temporary cause does not constitute notability. It can't stand alone, so it needs either to be deleted and redirected with a small (and I mean small) comment on the main article. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete on the basis of the detailed analysis I carried out on the article's talk; a handful of sources make brief, passing mention of "Occupy Marines" over a 3-4 week period, including one stating they "were not available for comment". None of the earlier sources that mention "occupy Marines" in passing have done any follow-up whatsoever. A redirect may be appropriate, but the article is not. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - the sources already in the article in my view enable GNG to be satisfied. Very disappointing that another AfD has been opened up so soon. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This looks like "Occupy Wikipedia" to me. It is described as an "online entity", but a google news search gives me only three hits, none of them related to this "entity". Is just a wordpress blog and fails NWEB. Reminder to the keep voters: it is not the votes that are counted in an Afd, but the number of policy based arguments that support the article or not. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG keep The joining of the OccupyMARINES to the Occupy-movement is a HIGHLY significant milestone for the Occupy-movement! That alone should be reason for this article to stay and be expanded rapidly to do just to the significance of their existence. In fact, I will request our media team to do so. 11:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.204.103.94 (talk) — 82.204.103.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This says it all. All my concerns about this article summed up in one comment – this article is just a publicity stunt for an online group of protesters. Just because this article exists and is related to the Occupy Movement, this does not confer notability. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is still just a handful of news articles, most of which mention Occupy Marines in passing. As for future coverage, that is to be considered in the future, not now, as per WP:CRYSTAL. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In passing"? I see multiple paragraphs devoted to the topic in the listed sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but close There should be no need for a discussion on this. Several notable news sources have covered the topic extensively. If this article is deleted, then Occupy Wall Street should be as well. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 12:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Surely you mean "Severala handful of notable news sources have covered the topic extensivelymention Occupy Marines in passing. Your argument that if this is deleted, Occupy Wall Street should also be deleted is a classic example of a logical fallacy and has no bearing on this discussion. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The vast majority of blogs are not credible sources. Your mention of user-submitted videos is misleading, no videos of members of Occupy Marines have been posted— they have attempted to piggy-back on ex-servicemen being videoed at Occupy protests who have zero affiliation with their website. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the above "parachuted-in" remark about blogs and videos, virtually all keep arguments put forward so-far break down as-follows:
  1. "significant coverage in the news articles directly addressing the topic" (WP:GNG/General Notability).
    False. In actuality, a handful of source mention this as an aside in articles on veterans' participation in the wider OWS movement. None of the named ex-military in those cited articles have espoused any association whatsoever with Occupy Marines. It is those individuals are the main focus of reliable sources cited to support this article's continued existence. Remove those cites, and all arguments to keep this fall apart.
  2. "Occupy Marines is a concrete entity, as real as Occupy Wall Street".
    False. Occupy Marines have not been seen at-all in the real world, and self-describe as an online entity. Not to mention their interaction with the media: "not been able to secure an interview with members of Occupy Marines despite numerous requests."—Camp Pendleton Patch, "a Facebook support group that did not respond to calls"—USA Today.
  3. "it meets WP:ELOFFICIAL".
    False. The second requirement listed there includes the prerequisite that the "subject is notable"; that is, to put it conservatively, in doubt.
That's it, that is every single one of the arguments given for the retention of this–and none of them hold water. I assume the remainder of the 'keep' side of the discussion will be Argumentum ad populum, Argumentum verbosium, Plurium interrogationum, and a side-order of the Chewbacca defense, no?
But nevermind, the drones will be in from Facebook and Twitter soon to try and stack the vote. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Drones! Have they arrived yet? Your contempt for free and open discussion is demonstrable. JohnValeron (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John, will you drop the personal attacks? Even where someone declines to log in and post under their name or pseudonym? You've been proven to canvass on this (until called on it, you selected to only notify those who voted keep; when called on it, you still omitted someone who previously voted delete). Then, when the discussion was leaning heavily towards deletion, someone magically posted on the OM twitter/facebook feeds regarding this discussion. Wasn't you, was it? A cynical comment about canvassing outside Wikipedia certainly is not "contempt for open and free discussion"—so drop the personal attacks against an IP address.
Anyone, like myself who has observed, and irregularly contributed to, Wikipedia over the last 7-8 years knows full-well the fate of articles like this. If they're not constantly watched they get filled up with utter hogwash that is so bad it pulls down the average quality of Wikipedia entries. Your original edit war with anons, and problems with ownership raised on ANI, prompted this 2nd VfD. One can assume when the heat has died down from this discussion, you - or someone else who cherishes this dreck - will again fill it out with self-serving puffery.
What's worse, is the standalone existence of this article may encourage mainstream media to see Occupy Marines as 'credible' and give them more coverage that is unwarranted. They're not notable, or they would have been in at least 20-30 mainstream media articles by now. They're riding on the coattails of one or two ex-military who have gotten themselves involved in OWS (And, I stress "involved in OWS", most decidedly not Occupy Marines). Recent coverage? Not a squeak in nearly a month—whereas OWS continues to hit headlines.
In some ways I'm impressed how a couple of people in their basements can cause so much discussion on Wikipedia—they've certainly not been photographed or observed at any Occupy protests. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Redirect - we don't need articles for every occupy location. Unless something important happened there (major violence making national news, extremely large size, etc), the occupy articles could stand to be merged/pruned. My own city has about ten people a day occupying it. The local news has covered them - do we really need an article? --B (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the most sensible suggestion yet. A redirect/merge would be a good outcome. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - (note - you can only vote once - second vote removed by User:Youreallycan) - I am sick of seeing the word canvasing tossed around in this discussion. I feel very strongly that this article should be kept, and should not simply become another redirect. If anything those opposed to keeping this article have done some canvasing of their own. I base this opinion on a clear distinct change in the tone of discussion. DO NOT LET THE VOCAL MINORITY RUN WIKIPEDIA OR IT WILL BECOME USELESS!!! Syrmopoulos (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC) --->If you say this response was canvased you prove my argument.[reply]
A rational break-down of your answer for everyone else: 1) Keep !voters should be able to canvass wherever they want for this discussion, even on the facebook page; 2) There are more people arguing to delete than last time, therefore delete !voters must have been canvassing; 3) I think this article should be kept (for no stated reason). Do you even have an argument for why this article should be kept? As for your last statement, please see WP:DEMOCRACY. This has nothing to do with majorities and minorities.Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for implying that people can't read on their own, but since you feel the need to explain what YOU THINK I MEAN let me help. 1) I don't have a problem with canvasing 2) I think those opposed to this article are hypocrites for "accusing" others of canvasing while at the same time clearly doing it themselves 3) I will say it again IF YOU USE THE WORDS GENERAL NOTABILITY GUIDELINES instead of throwing around acronyms, it begs the question "How does this NOT meet those guidelines?" ALL OPPOSITION TO THIS ARTICLE IS PURELY POLITICAL AND THINLY VEILED!!! Syrmopoulos (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is absurd. Whether or not you have a problem with canvassing, it is not permitted on wikipedia. In terms of delete !voters canvassing, the only evidence you have provided for that is "they must have been canvassing, because there are other people !voting delete". You haven't provided a single diff. I can't speak for other editors, but as the nominator I can confirm that the only place I have mentioned this discussion other than at AfD is at the ANI discussion mentioned in the notice at the top of the page. Acronyms are perfectly allowable, and as per linking guidelines I wikilinked the first instance of the usage of "GNG" in the introduction.
With regards to GNG, this article does not meet those guidelines. The news articles provided by keep voters either mention Occupy Marines in passing, or are news articles simply documenting the presence of veterans at the Occupy movement being misconstrued as articles distinctly covering OccupyMARINES. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With multiple paragraphs devoted to the topic in the listed sources, your observation is incorrect that the topic is covered only in passing. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect, probably to Occupy Wall Street unless there's a better target that I'm overlooking. There is some reliable source coverage, but it doesn't look that significant, so I think it would be better to include it on a larger page. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think one of the fundamental issues here is that sources referring to the presence of veterans or marines at Occupy movements are being confused with sources actually documenting the OccupyMARINES movement. Just because a news article mentions that there are veterans present at an Occupy movement, this does not mean that a cabal of twitter posters called OccupyMARINES is notable. For example, I could provide several sources documenting the presence of ethnic Native Americans living in London, but this wouldn't make a facebook group called !NativesinLondon! notable. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: My arguments for keeping the article have not changed in the last 3 weeks. Even the attempt to refute the arguments for keeping rely on news reports about Occupy Marines, which seems to self-refute the idea that the group fails to meet notability requirements. Nor are concerns about the article's current POV grounds for deletion: if Basalisk feels it favors the group rather than give a neutral presentation, they are free -- and encouraged! -- to improve the article.Holzman-Tweed (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please reproduce those reasons here? Thanks Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is clear, claims of flawed writing on the page are cause for rewrite, not deletion, no valid and substantiated cause for deletion has been stated. You yourself assert there isn't "enough" secondary source coverage to show notability, I assert there is. GNG itself declines to name a quantitative threshold of sources, and you have not provided any basis for how you decide what "enough" sources is.Holzman-Tweed (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, Covering the facts in a NPOV way. "OccupyMarines is an online group of unknown backing. They have a facebook page, twitter feed and their own website, and claim to support Marines involved with the occupy protests" That's the article written in a NPOV manner, using all the FACTS that are known. Anything beyond that is speculation or self-sourced. Or are you privy to additional facts from secondary sources? That is, after all ,the major issue. There are no facts, because there's no secondary sources, because it's not notable. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being mentioned, and being covered are two different things. In those stories, if you take out the OccupyMarines specific content out, asre you left with a story? Yes. Is the object of the news story significantly changed? No. In that case, they're a tangential reference, one made in passing, and not the intent of the story or what it's covering. What you are left with then is one, maybe two pieces if you stretch things, and that's a far cry from the notability you're talking about. Even if we take your claims at face value, 5 publications in 2 months on a high profile event, isn't all that notable, is it? 72.152.12.11 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're making up rules! There is no test involving whether or not a news article is rendered unreadable if the topic coverage is removed. No, a news article can conceivably cover several topics of interest, each significantly, as we have in our mainstream sources. Five publications in national sources is quite clearly enough to meet WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Delete. By definition, blogs are an WP:SPS and not considered a reliable source per WP:RS. Clearly these do not fit into the Subject Matter Expert caveat in the guideline; the comments about "citizen journalism" are clearly made in ignorance of policy. The "group" appears to be little more than a few individuals on a facebook page and does not meet notability guidelines. Per WP:NOTNEWS I do not consider this is worthy of an article in its own rights and at most would merit a footnote on the article dealing with the Occupy protests. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. How does SPS apply? That would be an issue if the blog were used as a source. In this case we have five arguably reliable sources that cover the topic of the article, so the question is, I think, just one of whether the coverage is significant enough to meet GNG. If a single person running a blog on a deserted island receives significant coverage in reliable sources, they are notable, and not because of the blog. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply You have picked on just one of the reasons that I quoted for suggesting it is a clear delete, for future reference trying to attack an argument by not addressing the broad points raised is not a good debating device but an indicator that your premise is weak. This is not an example of notable coverage in the media, its a singular event where reliable sources cover the subject in passing, where the articles actually refer to other individuals. At present it is nothing more than a Facebook page, with a limited number of contributors. This is more a case of wikipedia being used for promotion of a non-notable group; well wikipedia is not a marketing opportunity, its supposed to be an online encyclopedia. The vicious and highly personal comments directed at anyone who states this should be deleted, not to mention the concerted lobby effort to have the deletion discussion stacked has instead convinced me this is a non-notable group that does not merit coverage according to WP:GNG. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Add Btw it may have escaped your notice but though I would delete the article, I would merge the content with Occupy Wall Street. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Entry is in compliance with WP:GNG:
  • ' "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.':
Cited coverage is from credible organizations and specific to OccupyMarines.
  • ' "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.':
CBS, Marine Corps Times, BI, ABC, etc.
  • ' "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.':
Again, multiple sources, multiple authors, etc.
  • ' "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator.':
CBS, ABC, etc are obviously not "part" of OccupyMarines.
  • ' A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia.':
Not only does the entry satisfy one of the criteria, it satisfies all of them.
In summary, it doesn't really matter who's behind it, how many of them there are, etc. This article meets WP:GNG as specified by the GNG, itself. Keep.
Jcgentile01 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— Jcgentile01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The vast majority of the sources you're referring to either mention Occupy Marines only in passing, or mention only the presence of veterans (who have no affiliation with Occupy Marines) at Occupy protests. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a vast majority offer one, then it's safe to say a small minority offer the other. Majority or minority, I think, don't make a difference. If the mention is there, anywhere, then it is there. Whether any of us like it or not is irrelevant; the entry is in compliance with WP:GNG. Opinions aside, this complies with the requirements. Jcgentile01 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used the phrase "vast majority" to indicate that there is a dearth of appropriate sources, implying that the article does not satisfy point 3 of GNG. There simply aren't enough secondary sources directly and exclusively documenting this group to make them notable. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is a reference for exactly how many secondary sources are required to make this group notable? (Edit: I'm sure a quick google search of "OccupyMarines" will reveal many more sources that may be used as secondary sources.) Jcgentile01 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need "multiple," so the bare minimum would, in theory, be two. I think the question is the nature of the coverage. A "mention" is not "significant" coverage. That said, the CBS News and Business Insider articles are more than mere mentions. The other sources seem, to me, to be very insignificant coverage -- that is, the other sources are more about the phenomenon of military personnel/veterans involves in the OWS movement, and mention Occupy Marines only as an example of the phenomenon. But CBS/BI are worthy, in my opinion, and if the scope of the argument is limited to finding more than one reliable source covering Occupy Marines directly and in significant detail. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jcgentile01, you may care to refer to the far from casual Google search I carried out, and documented, on the Occupy Marines talk page. The many more mentions that turned up are predominantly linkspam on OWS-related blog entries and news articles; the far-and-away majority of direct mentions in legitimate mainstream sources (which are in mid-single-digits) are a very brief side-note on either there being an OccupyMARINES Facebook page or twitter feed. Two of those more mainstream mentions of Occupy Marines go out of their way to highlight they tried to contact whoever-they-are for comment, and got none. Just look at the Occupy Marines wordpress blog/website, it seems far from unreasonable to assume this is someone who considers themselves part of Anonymous running another Occupy Wikipedia stunt. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"...predominantly linkspam..." assumes that some of them are not linkspam. All of this may be, but we're getting away from the original topic. This article flagged for deletion citing WP:GNG, which it does not violate. The requirements are in black and white, and this meets them. Jcgentile01 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak Keep I think some people are being overly hasty in dismissing some of these sources. Specifically, the CBS News and Business Insider articles are almost entirely about Occupy Marines. That said, I think the organizations notability is entirely within the scope of OWS. It has no separate, independent notability. I also highly doubt it has any lasting notability, although that is not entirely necessary. Given that we really only have good coverage in two sources (the other sources mentioned really do only give the Occupy Marines movement very brief attention; they're more about veterans in general), and given my other concerns, I think this is a delete. Definitely doesn't seem to me a slam dunk delete, but the nature of the organization and its notability gives me serious pause. After thinking about this more, while my gut tells me that this really ought to be merged elsewhere, I've been more careful in the past to hew closely to GNG, which does tend to accept this article on the strength of the CBS and BI sources. I'd really like to re-review this in 6-12 months time to see if notability has shifted (which happens). Regardless, changing vote to weak keep, whatever "weak" means. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I managed to find this discussion after seeing the notice on the article (which unhelpfully links to just the general deletion category, and not here)... isn't it strange there's no link from the primary article? I created a link from the talk page, so that more people will be able to easily find it. Further, I did a quick google search and did find them mentioned on major news outlets... this portion of the OWS movement appears WP:NOTABLE enough to me. -Kai445 (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my bad. This is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion and the process is new to me. Thanks for your help. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 21:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, scratch that, the link at the top of the article works just fine. I don't know what link you were clicking, but clicking the text "this article's entry" in the deletion notice is linked to this discussion. Thanks anyway Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 21:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, looks like I clicked the wrong thing. My bad! The talk page link still 'ought to help some folks. -Kai445 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kai445, I slogged through 100+ Google hits looking for significant coverage from major news outlets. I documented the results on the Occupy Marines talk page, and I do not agree that they support a claim to notability. You will certainly see a significant number of other hits hosted on mainstream news sites in those 100+ hits, but those listed on the talk excluded, the rest are comments on the articles, blogs hosted on said news sites, or the news articles have had the Occupy Marines content removed post-indexing (strongly suggesting some of those mainstream outlets have decided, with hindsight, that Occupy Marines is not notable). --77.100.209.249 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)— 77.100.209.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - I've posted several comments and asked a few informational questions on the foregoing thread, but have not expressed a preference as to Keep or Delete. As stated above, I prefer to wait until I've read what others have to say.
Nevertheless, in light of the first 24 hours of discussion on this AfD, please allow me to offer an observation. The commenters favoring Delete have been consistently nasty and condescending, officiously spouting Wikipedia policies as if those were the Ten Commandments and the rest of us are unwashed heathens.
In particular, they repeatedly cite WP:DEMOCRACY to the effect that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that this AfD will not be decided on a vote. At the same time, they cry bloody murder because I adhered to WP:CANVAS and notified other editors of this ongoing AfD "with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Somehow, those favoring Delete have divined that my intent was to stack votes—even though, they tirelessly remind us, votes don't count for shit in this debate.
Without judging the substance of their arguments, I simply want to make the point that these patronizing and discourteous Deletionists reflect badly on Wikipedia's editorial community. JohnValeron (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that this comment has nothing to do with this discussion and so I don't really see why it's here. But what are you complaining about now? Are you actually upset by the fact that there are people who disagree with you passionately? If you don't like the heat of debate then perhaps AfD isn't the place for you. Also, you might want to be careful about making broad personal attacks, such as calling all the people who disagree with you in a particular discussion "patronizing and discourteous". Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 09:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell, JohnValeron? You are taking entirely too wide of a brush to paint those of us who are !voting delete with, and that reflects very poorly on you as an editor - not us. Watch your personal attacks! Lithorien (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as the notability of the article's subject was established just a few days ago. In this discussion (as in the previous one) I see many WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but, considering the sources this is (and remain) an easy keep per GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability seems to have been established, when full articles are written on a subject it seems a bit of a stretch to question GNG in good faith. un☯mi 12:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As even one of the delete voters admits, two of the sources are entirely about Occupy Marines: ABS & businessinsider Even if not for this, much of the delete arguments are clearly not based on policy. They've been arguing as though we need sources entirely dedicated to a subject in order to keep it, but WP:GNG specifically rejects this "...it need not be the main topic of the source material." After reviwing all the sources in the article, this important and worthy topic seems to have sufficient coverage to meet GNG several times over, so agree its an easy keep. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that the requirement that the subject be the main topic of the cited sources comes from WP:WEB, rather than WP:GNG. However, I see your point, and for the benefit of others in this discussion I concede at this point that consensus is to keep. I will not be arguing for a deletion any further. Regards Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that seems most collegial especially as you make a good point about WP:WEB. I can see why some think it may apply, but it looks to me like Occupy Marines has had considerable real world impact, encouraging veterans to physically support the movement. Whether or not the organisers are real x-marines, they seem to have had an important and valuable real world influence, helping the whole of occupy in its US heartland. As it says in the Nation source. "With IVAW, VFP, Occupy Marines and other veteran organizations pledging their support for Occupy Wall Street, the movement continues to grow and gain legitimacy." FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I gave an opinion of keep in the previous delete proposal, but I've changed my view a bit because:
1) One of the reasons the notability guideline gives for establishing the extent of coverage (which I missed before) was so "we can be confident that we're not...perpetuating hoaxes..." Not sure there's been enough depth of coverage to make it reliable that this isn't a hoax. NB: other guidelines also seem to point out that hoaxes can be covered on Wikipedia if they were considered notable (considered as hoaxes or not at the time). NB: not talking about hoax articles, just articles about hoaxes.
2) The notability guideline says "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." This point was made before I think re. the coverage really only being incidental to the news event of Sharmar Thomas's action. Maybe, and I'm not sure what is meant by 'routine' reports, but I do think that the coverage of OccupyMarines was about the event that was their appearance, mainly published back in October. It doesn't seem that the sources have published much further about them as an ongoing concern of note. There are two in november, however, one in passing when notes how many Facebook likes they'd received, & one in passing goes back to their originally starting up and quotes what they said (or put on the web) then. Maybe that's enough, I don't know.
3) Similarly, "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest". It seems to have only been a one-off interest for each of the publications that have covered it. But then again, two have picked it up (briefly in passing) in November, and it's only been a few months since they appeared on the web.
4) WP:CLUB says "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources." The sources have reported that the organisation hasn't been around long, and that it was yet to be seen how many members it would attract. EverSince (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reluctantly. There's really no credible argument to make against the ABC and Businessinsider coverage, but this thing...and really all the Occupy pages in general...need to be watched closely to ensure they do not become PR arms of the movement itself. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the ABC source is pretty much the only source where there isn't a barely incidental mention, and even then it's mostly about the one individual marine.

    This is nothing but another attempt at creating notability for a movement by misusing Wikipedia's visibility and exposure. We are an encyclopedia, people, not a marketing platform. Abusing our project's visibility in order to invent credence for your pet cause is destructive and goes against what we are. — Coren (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's a poisonous response, Coren. I have no horse in this race, no "pet cause", yet I !voted to keep simply because I found significant coverage in the ABC News, Business Insider and CBS News sources. Two such sources are all that's required to meet WP:GNG. Please aim your guns at the specific editors who are activists, not at the article, or at good faith editors who are making fair judgments based on notability policy. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not poisonous at all. Assertions that two Internet writes on a news feed topic is sufficient for publishing a promo activism article via wikipedia is detrimental to the foundations NPOV ambitions and also imo demeans the whole project - experienced contributors are expected to take such considerations on board. Youreallycan (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your term "promo activism article" sets it up for destruction, but you ignore the fact that an article can be trimmed of "promo activism" to become neutral and encyclopedic. Again, the stick should be brought down upon the backs of activists, not upon articles that can be written innocently and neutrally. This one should be reduced in size and scope, trimmed of all primary sources, but not deleted. Activists who are trying to expand it with shite sources should be disciplined. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: none of the sources presented so far strikes me as "significant third-party coverage". --Carnildo (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Few of the !votes here are policy based, except mostly from names I recognize as frequent contributors to AfD discussions. When someone sharp and deletion-minded like Tarc opines keep, even reluctantly, there is no way such an article will ever be deleted. Why? Because it meets WP:GNG. In six months, we can revisit whether organizationally it makes sense for this to have its own page or be addressed someone else in the Occupy-related coverage.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sourced to CBS News, ABC News, The Nation magazine... What kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT disruption is this?!?! Snow this shut. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Occupy Wall Street. There is some independent coverage and it is arguable whether that is actually significant, so it is by no means certain that it meets GNG. The mistake in most keep rationales (even Tarc's) is to assume that every subject which might meet GNG must have a stand-alone article. BLP1E is the analogy that immediately springs to mind, where we offer clear guidance to place people within a larger, more developed 'parent' article. In the same way, the lack of reliably sourced content (meeting GNG or not) for "Occupy Marines" strongly suggests to me that its coverage in Wikipedia makes far more sense within the Occupy Wall Street article where it can be seen in context. As ever, should a considerably larger number of reliable sources cover it in future, that would be the time to consider splitting off a daughter article. At present, these sort of thinly-sourced, single issue topics present an irresistible coatrack for proponents to use for promotion; whereas placing them in a larger article will always benefit from the attention of a greater number of editors. --RexxS (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine we'll get a consensus re a merge target in this AfD with already such a long and belabored discussion, and there's no reason to have this discussion now. Nominating this article for a 2nd AfD so soon after a strong keep close was DUMB. This should be closed immediately as keep without prejudice to revisiting in six months so we can actually do worthwhile editing.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the fact that everyone who has !voted merge has mentioned Occupy Wall Street as the target seems to indicate that we would have strong consensus for that target, especially as this article places itself in the context of OWS in the very first sentence. The very large amount of discussion here shows that there are good reasons to have this discussion. It may be worth considering that only a handful of editors have more than a couple of edits to this article, so it's not exactly a magnet for editors to come along and improve it. No, this really ought to be closed as an obvious merge without prejudice to revisiting that in six months, on the off-chance that it's going to be expanded beyond its present stubbiness. Editors are just as capable of making worthwhile improvements to it as a section of OWS, with rather less chance of having it hijacked by promotionalists - which seems to be what sparked off the second nomination and this debate. --RexxS (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute your assertion that the second nomination and this debate were sparked off because Occupy Marines was "hijacked by promotionalists." What is your evidence for that inflammatory charge? JohnValeron (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:ANI#Edit war at Occupy Marines, a report that you initiated. Note particularly comments like Tarc's "Geez, that thing is a bad joke of an ad campaign masquerading as a genuine Wikipedia article" and your own "you'd find multiple edits in November by a user identified as OccupyMARINES, suggesting that entity was allowed to contribute repeatedly to an article about itself", not to mention "some people would rather talk the hind legs off a donkey than be a little ruthless and slash out obvious self-promotion" from 77.100.209.249. There are more, but I assume you get the message that quite a few people, including yourself, thought that there was far too much promotion in the article. You don't have to read much further to see Basalisk's "I'm tempted to open another deletion discussion" - which he did. So which part of "the second nomination and this debate were sparked off because Occupy Marines was hijacked by promotionalists." did you want to Wiki-lawyer over now? --RexxS (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep First off, this is a bad AfD nomination. If the nominator had an issue with how the prior AfD was closed (only a few short weeks ago), then they should have taken it to WP:DRV. But, I doubt that would have done anything, as the coverage of this group appears to be extensive, which i'll list below.
And that's just what I found after a quick Google search. I know I can find more if I dig deeper. SilverserenC 03:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you look at those sources? The Blaze and the Daily Kos are blogs, as WP:SPS we would not consider them reliable sources. Aside from a brief mention when the press release came out, there is no coverage of this group. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • [6] USA Today Occupy Marines, a Facebook support group that did not respond to calls, has been urging vets and active-duty personnel to show up at demonstrations, but not in military uniforms. Not exactly establishing notability, a Facebook page where the group didn't respond to a press query. Its mentioned obliquely in passing. The coverage in each of those sources is minimal, this is not extensive coverage. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How's about we start with more than just one or two that only cover it in reference to a single 'event'. That was their 'we exist' articles, but there's no 'we're notable' articles. If you've ever worked any kind of news, you'll know that something newsworthy (aka 'notable' gets covered by multiple places at the same time. The fact you DON'T have multiple sources, but can only muster a total of 5-6 TOTAL, and 2-3 that have anything beyond a passing mention means news don't consider it notable. For contrast, check out how Many covered Sgt. Thomas' rant. Then check how many covered Olsen. In the last 48 hours Google News lists over 2000 stories related to Olsen, because of his march leading in Oakland. THAT is notable. Shamar Thomas has articles ongoing centered on him. Occupy Marines? I got only a handful, all old, or incidental remarks. Face it, they're not notable. Or, I tell you what, I've had more coverage of ME in verified sources, over a much greater period of time than OccupyMarines (and I've not had to jump on someone else's coattails to do so), so do I meet notability? According to you, I exceed it, but I know I'm not notable at all. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It all comes down to that I disagree with you in terms of the extent of the coverage. I consider this coverage to be enough for there to be a Wikipedia article on it, especially since, beyond the coverage, it has actually made an impact in regards to the Occupy movement. Remember that reliable sources (or WP:V, as they represent) doesn't have anything to do with WP:N, beyond that they are supposed to be a verification or representation of notability. But true notability is actually in regards to impact, which is why articles on topics like Nobel Prize winners and their work are made before even any news sources are made on the subject, since the impact has already been established that such topics are notable.
In this case, the sources assert some information in regards to Occupy Marines' impact that I feel meets the notability requirements. SilverserenC 08:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Merge - seems a bit of a puff piece, the group has minimal notability right now (it might improve) and is best dealt with in the context of the OWS article (a paragraph etc.) --Errant (chat!) 12:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant information to OWS for now per Errant. Now: first the nom shows very poor form in bringing this here a scant few weeks after the previous closure rather than seeking a DRV. Second: While there are quite a few sources being bandied about which document perhaps a valid article on Marines and the "Occupy" momement(s) .. this current article is not it. The article as it stands discusses a facebook group, while the sources discuss how various military and police forces are involved in these occupy movements. While an occasional reference to a twitter or facebook page may be mentioned; the reliable sources are not documenting what this current article is attempting to put forth. Worth a mention? sure, in the right place with proper sources. — Ched :  ?  14:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite article to incorporate ALL the "occupy Marines" material. after further consideration (and a bit of discussion) I think this article as it is written is simply a "no go". An article about a facebook page? .. really? .. are you serious? People have pointed out some sources that discuss the "Occupy Marine" movement/group/whatever that do indicate a notable topic - but I'm sorry .. as it stands ... there is no flow to the article .. it's simply a mish-mash of soundbytes that present no discernible or coherent subject matter. A LOT of work from multiple editors has gone into this, and it would be a shame to lose all those edits - but if folks can't compromise and find a middleground then how do you expect us to support this as is? Is the subject matter notable? yep! Is this the article that presents that subject matter .. ABSOLUTELY NOT! just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  02:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry about DRV. This is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion and I was not familiar with the DRV process. Mea culpa. I'll know in future. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ched, have you evaluated all the sources? Two of the more reliable sources are almost entirely dedicated to Occupy Marines – I and others have specifically linked to them several times in this debate. Granted, an article about the involvement of Veterans with the Occupy movement would be even more noteable, and Id have no objection to such a merge if someone creates the new article (as long as other keep voters agree). But am strongly opposed to a merge to OWS. Too much information could be lost, as that article is already cramped. A review of all the reliable sources show Occupy Marines easily has enough coverage for a dedicated article, per our GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Basalisk: .. not a huge deal as far as I'm concerned, we're all trying to do what's best for the project I'm sure.
@Feyd .. replied on your talk - hopefully we can work out a solution that acceptable to everyone. — Ched :  ?  16:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.I also thought about a merge to Occupy Wall Street but, I had the thought that the article would be too long so I scratched that thought. As noted, I would think a rewrite would be in order to more accurately reflect on the sources and to become more inline with Wikipedia quality standards. Planetary ChaosTalk 18:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I promised in the previous discussion that I'd stay out of it for now. The situation hasn't really improved. We still don't know for sure who these guys are. We can only infer that it's these two shady former (or perhaps in this case "ex-") Marines, only one of whom has his name in the article. I don't have any expectations for this group ever achieving anything notable. They said they'd provide security but I don't see them being mentioned in the news stories whenever one of these rape incidents occurs. The entire Occupado movement may wither away before we know something about them that's worth having an article about. -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, I'm trying to understand your comment, but need your help to clarify. By "two shady former (or perhaps in this case 'ex-) Marines," are you referring to Shamar Thomas and Scott Olsen? If so, I've seen no claims anywhere that either man is connected in any way to Occupy Marines. Have you? If so, please provide at least one reference. Thanks. JohnValeron (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are the two I am referring to.
You're right that there are no claims that they're associated with the "organization" but those are the only two names we have. If they're not the founders, then that's even worse. At least with Thomas and Olsen we know for certain that they were Marines at one time. For all we know, whoever is behind this group could well be another Jesse Macbeth.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, thanks for the link to Jesse Macbeth. It's a fascinating story, and this is the first I've heard of it. However, I note several References in that article from recognized third-party sources, such as ABC News, that document Jesse's being a fake.
There are no such references in the article under discussion, Occupy Marines. We have no way to validate your suspicions as to this group's legitimacy, and you've not provided any.
So your argument is not persuasive as to why Occupy Marines should be deleted from Wikipedia. Indeed, your argument doesn't even appear to be relevant to the AfD.
Perhaps I'm missing something. If so, please explain. JohnValeron (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that this is another Jesse Macbeth. I said "for all we know" he/she/they could be. The point is that we don't know.
Actually, if it was another Jesse Macbeth-type then that could make him notable. After all, Macbeth is notable for his fakery.
I look at their twitter followers, and very few of them appear ex-military. Most of them look like they'd never make it. One of them is OccupyAllWater. Should they get an article, too?
Right now, most of the Occupy Marines story is about what they're going to become one day. They need to hurry it up.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your mischaracterization. Most of Occupy Marines is not about what they're going to become one day, but about who they are and what they've been reported—by reliable third-party sources—as having done. JohnValeron (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just took another look at the article. It still doesn't say they've done anything other than get a web site, facebook, and twitter accounts -- most of whose followers are probably non-veterans.
If they've done anything other than talk about what they're going to do then the article should say that.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must be looking at the wrong article. Occupy Marines makes no mention of Twitter. JohnValeron (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the article didn't mention that. I got it from their website. I'm fixing it here.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you add an External Link to Twitter at Occupy Marines but not to Facebook? They are, as the article's lede states, primarily a Facebook support group. If you link to Twitter, shouldn't you also link to Facebook? JohnValeron (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because 1) I was in a hurry when I did that; 2) I didn't know the URL or the syntax for the Facebook template; and 3) I'm lazy. -- Randy2063 (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter whether we know who these guys are, or what our expectations of what they may or make not accomplish? It seems to me that the key issue is whether the reliable sources (as reliability seems not a question) have provided enough coverage to qualify to meet GNG, and we should focus on that issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is whether or not they're a fly-by-night organization.
They said they're going to provide security but we haven't seen that reported. At the moment, they're WP:WI1E.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WI1E is an essay, not a policy, and pertains to BLPs. A better argument would be based on Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS, I think, but not one I would agree with. I would also suggest that it does not matter what they've said (indeed, if what they've said affected notability, we'd use SPS in notability discussions, and we tend to not do that), nor whether "they're a fly-by-night organization" (since if such received sufficient coverage in reliable sources, they'd meet GNG). --Nuujinn (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a point which is relevant is that there needs to have been enough coverage so that "we can be confident that we're not...perpetuating hoaxes" The coverage doesn't have to identify who's behind the entity perhaps, but since the entity claims to consist of former marines I suspect the coverage should really be deep enough to have at least pointed out whether any substantiation of that had been provided or not. Which is tied to the other issue about whether there's been enough returning coverage to demonstrate that it wasn't a "mere short term interest". EverSince (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EverSince, you've made this point before and I've grappled with it but still don't understand. Please be patient with me. "The coverage," you write, "should really be deep enough to have at least pointed out whether any substantiation" exists as to whether or not Occupy Marines consists of former Marines. But that gets us back to the thorny issue of a Wikipedia editor conducting Original Research to determine the quality of coverage. Not to ascertain if there's been coverage by reliable third-party sources, but how "deep" that coverage is—a subjective value judgment by the Wikipedia editor that is, I submit, entirely out of place in this AfD discussion. JohnValeron (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can only concur with the above comments that "who these guys are", or the truthfulness of what they have to say has little to do with WP delete/keep procedures. The only thing that should matter is if this renomination was valid, and if so what should be decided. Reading through this page, I have a hard time finding any argument that this was a valid renomination.Belorn (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A good faith position is that the wrong result was returned at the first deletion discussion. There are a fair few accounts that are Single purpose or new accounts that joined in the discussions. Some users (myself included) see this group as pretty much not actually existing, and more like a self promotional arm of the anonymous activist group. The whole thing seems to revolve around a single news story about a demonstrating ex marine in new york. The OccupyNavy and OccupyMarine that is advertised on this groups internet page don't exist. The group don't seem to really exist in a real notable way or to be giving interviews or doing the things it said it was going to do. A few news reports about a single incident only, the rest is self promotional. Wikipedia should not be used to promote anonymous activism groups of minimal note. Youreallycan (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JohnValeron, on checking again I see the point about hoaxes is made re need for reliable sources, rather than re depth of coverage, and I concede that the publications being used are considered reliable. But I think your general point is wrong - the notability guideline does make several points about the need to evaluate the coverage e.g. "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources", they must "address the subject directly in detail", there must be evidence that it's not "a mere short-term interest". I wasn't suggesting we need to do our own research, just that none of the coverage even mentions whether any substantiation has been provided for the claim of being veterans (or even whether the claim is made coherently in their own statements) - which perhaps editors might reasonably conclude is a sign of a lack of depth or persistence to the coverage. EverSince (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EverSince, you are mistaken in charging that none of the coverage contains a "coherent" claim by Occupy Marines of being veterans. "We are a collection of prior service Marines intent on protecting American citizens and their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights," a spokesperson for the group said, according to the ABC News story cited in our Occupy Marines article. That's coherent enough for me.
But again, so what? Even if they are not veterans as they claim, that's no reason to Delete this article. JohnValeron (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I was thinking really of the self-published claimed interview document which makes incoherent claims about how long they've allegedly served for. But the key point remains that none of the coverage, as far as I know, so much as mentions whether or not any substantiation has been provided for the claims. Which doens't indicate depth or detail of coverage or sustained interest. And means Wikipedia can't make it clear to readers that it is not even known whether any substantiation of their claims has been provided. EverSince (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the central argument for this renomination is that WP:SPA and WP:SOCK was involved in affecting the decision of the previous nomination, I assume the accounts in question has been tagged with the SPA tag? That there is a WP:SPI going on about them? Maybe someone did a WP:CHECK to support/deny the claim? Im not trying to be picky, but there is plenty of tools to handle the issues of SPA and SOCK, and from what I can see none of those has been used, and instead we have this renomination which kind of looks a bit odd. Belorn (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belorn, I'm not trying to be picky either, but is the fact that "this renomination kind of looks a bit odd" have any bearing on an Admin's disposition of this 2nd AfD? I know far less about the process than you do but am trying to learn, so please bear with me. Let's say the accounts in question were not tagged as SPA, that there is no WP:SPI going on about them, and that no one did a WP:CHECK to support/deny claims about WP:SPA and WP:SOCK. Would all of that be grounds for Keeping this article? JohnValeron (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it will play a role at this point, since we've been discussing the renomination. I think there's no question that the better course would have been DRV, but the nomination was made, and editors appear to be discussing this in good faith. I do not think there's a policy specifically forbidding such a quick renomination, but waiting a longer period is easier on everyone's nerves. Socks and Spas show up regularly at contentious AFDs, but running those down, at least in my opinon, is balanced by our assumption of good faith and not wanting to overburden the clerks who run checks. EverSince's point is spot on, IMO, as we have coverage, it spans 2-3 months, it goes into some depth--the question is, is it enough to justify a stand alone article. I think it is, but others disagree, and that is both normal and fine, and I think this particular article is in a grey area regarding GNG, since it's only been around a short while and is not generating a lot of press. Whoever closes an AFD is supposed to weigh the arguments presented. Arguments well presented and informed by policies carry more weight than ones which are not. Spas and Socks tend to make weak arguments at AFDs. Sorry to ramble, --Nuujinn (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"and editors appear to be discussing this in good faith", that is actually quite a good point. If things are rolling on in good mood then there is no need to stop it. My concern is mostly not to have people turn away from the project because a perceived feeling that decision on keep has less valued and get easily changed then decisions to delete. That said, I agree with your assessment to keep going on with the discussion. Belorn (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the most related comment in that article to this deletion discussion "Patch has not been able to secure an interview with members of Occupy Marines despite numerous requests." - that is because they almost do not exist - one ex marine camping does not make a real movement. Youreallycan (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what their existence has to do with their notability. If they are a hoax, then we would cover them just the same, but state that they are a hoax. For now, we have coverage of them as a group or movement and it is on those grounds that we are considering it for notability. Unless new reliable info comes to light, their existence is a pointless discussion. SilverserenC 20:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This webpage is nothing but another front for the anonymous group. There is only limited independent coverage over a news event of that single ex marine video from New York. Anonymous have just created all this as a mouthpiece for their own means, its got nothing or almost totally nothing to do with its original reporting news story notability. Youreallycan (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, there has been coverage of Marines joining the Occupy movement. While the Facebook group may or may not have been made to be truthful, the people that have joined it and are using it are making it something real. If it was made by Anonymous (which I doubt), it is out of their hands now and has become an actual movement. And there is significant coverage of the Facebook group (and extensions on Occupy Marines beyond just the Facebook group) anyways, so notability is shown. Again, whether the original Facebook group is "real" or not is completely irrelevant to this discussion. SilverserenC 20:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those two articles about the marine shouting in new york do not cut it for me - those article are from over six weeks ago - these nothing fresh because the veterans in some back room building their website, giving interviews, and their group don't exist at all. This is barely over the grass cutting level of independent GNG coverage and in situations like this where there are clear doubts about the groups real existence we should not allow the project to be used to promote such a claimed webpage group. At least they have been forced to remove vague and misleading claims of association to the Marines and their paypal please give money here has been removed so the damage of hosting it here is at least diminishing. Youreallycan (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even have to make a counter argument to that. I'm just going to let people read what you just said. SilverserenC 21:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good - take it and add it to the opponents of free speechers anarchist attempts to use the wikipedia project for their self promotion trophy cabinet. Youreallycan (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one here can actually prove or disprove the existence of the group, or if the original Facebook group was made with true veterans or not, further discussion to argue the truthfulness of the subject will not result in any great results. Instead, if you think the notability of the subject is lacking, could you specify in what way that is, but in a way so that we do not end up discussing the truthfulness of the group.Belorn (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The truthfulness of the identity claims is relevant as to whether the group has been considered notable enough that those claims have been checked out in any way. Or for it to have even been noted whether any evidence has been provided or not (either way, but noted at least). There doesn't appear to have been any published investigation or analysis or even summary of the various claims of being comprised of veterans of the US Marines Corps. Can at least say that some journalists have reported not being able to contact them I suppose. EverSince (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I can understand the need for truth, remember that Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article (WP:TRUTH). That said, fact-checking is a criteria WP:RS, but to my understanding you need clear consensus if you want to mark a otherwise reliable third-party/s as untrustworthy for a particular subject, and original research that "proves a source wrong" is dubious to use for this purpose. Belorn (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, good - take it and add it to the opponents of free speechers anarchist attempts to use the wikipedia project for their self promotion trophy cabinet." That's a really bad argument to make here, you might consider recasting that one. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I do agree that the articles needs some cleaning but I think there is more than sufficient grounds to keep it. Based on the length of this discussion after 6 days my first impulse was to do a non-admin close as keep since there is obviously no consensus to delete it but I decided against it. Maybe I'll swing back by later and do it if someone doesn't beat me too it. --Kumioko (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kumioko, please don't do a non-admin close. This discussion is ongoing and is far from exhausted. Please let it run its course and wait for Admin closure. It would be a disservice to Wikipedia for you to unilaterally preempt further input. JohnValeron (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine but with about 26 Keeps, 15 deletes and a few suggestions to Merge and Redirect there clearly isn't going to be a clear consensus to delete the article at this time. I really don't feel strongly about the article either way but as I see it this isn't just a simple matter of majority rules. Rarely do this many folks turn out to vote on an article like this and this clearly isn't a land slide in favor of deletion. Thats all I'm trying to say. Even if it was 26 deletes to 15 keeps I would say it should be kept just by percentage. --Kumioko (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute your interpretation as to consensus. But please let us proceed with our discussion. For you to do a non-admin close at this point would do nothing more than subvert the process. JohnValeron (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26 keeps because someone wrote on a facebook page to come and lobby to keep this article does not represent a consensus to keep. The arguments in favour of retention don't stack up, they're lobbying to keep an article on a Facebook group that got mentioned in a few press articles and that is all, while the article itself is little more than self-promotion. This is clearly a case of wikipedia being use to self-promote a non-notable group, as evinced by their claim to be working with wikipedia. Its a very clear delete and should not be a non-admin close. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I am an author of the Occupy Marines page. I did not create the page, however I have added content and references to it. I am not a member of Occupy Marines. I am not and have never served in the Marines or any other armed force. I was not canvassed. I write and edit sparsely as time permits on a variety of topics that interest me as reflected on my User page. I'm trying to find a way to read the above comment that is consistent with WP:GOODFAITH and WP:AOBF and not having much luck. Holzman-Tweed (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only 5 of the Keeps are SPAs, the rest being established users, while 2 of the Delete votes are also SPAs. Regardless of any canvassing, it is quite clear that this discussion falls within the no consensus leaning toward keep end of the spectrum, considering the arguments have essentially boiled down to "the sources meet GNG" and "the sources don't meet GNG". SilverserenC 09:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not part of any "lobby", and the fact that an article could appear "self-promotional" is not a valid reason for deletion, rather it is a reason to improve it and make it more neutral as possible. Cavarrone (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wee Curry Monster, your allegation that we have "26 keeps because someone wrote on a facebook page to come and lobby to keep this article" is absurd. You have no way of knowing that, and to allege such a thing in order to collectively nullify all Keep votes is dishonest. JohnValeron (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cobblers, it was headed for delete right up to the point that a message went out on Facebook lobbying to skew this delete discussion. What is dishonest John, before you stoop to calling people liars, is trying to deny that message ever went out on Facebook. And if you remove the self-promotional crap what do we have. There is a facebook page called OccupyMarines, they got mentioned in a few press articles and they don't answer the phone. What else? Its a very clear delete of a self-promotional puff piece of a non-notable group hanging on to wikipedia's coat tails to make them look more important. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You act surprised! Remember, this is the same JohnValeron that added a self-sourced press release, and kept reverting it back on when it was removed for being unsourced, not NPOV, and failing WP:SOAP. Seriously, This whole article has gotten stuck in a loop, similar to the one expressed in this xkcd comic. Yet instead of a claim on wikipedia starting it, it was some posts on facebook and twitter. Then because there was 'a quote' posted on a reputable news site, it's treated as a verified fact, even though the sources themelves all but say 'this is NOT a verified fact' in the way they present things. Copy-pasting from social media is not reporting, it's not even fact-checking. When the 'verified sources' are clearly pointing out that they haven't verified the claims (by attributing it to a post on facebook or twitter) then they don't stand by the quality of it. In that case, how can it really be a verified source? 72.152.12.11 (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)— 72.152.12.11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Lol! The above sockpuppet account is also part of the facebook-lobbying-conspiracy? --Cavarrone (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly he's a part of the anti-facebook-lobbying-conspiracy. (/sarcasm...except not really). SilverserenC 21:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lets try to get back to the issue at hand, by either continue the discussion about WP:GNG or dropping it and simply return back here in 3-6 months if the article has not improved. Ignoring keep comments by turning a blind eye to WP:GOODFAITH, or making comments with a dose of WP:SARCASM will not get this anywhere. Belorn (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've contributed frequently to this discussion, but haven't voted because I'm new to the AfD process and wanted to see how it plays out. However, it has now been eight days since this 2nd AfD nomination (which followed the 1st AfD's closure by only 11 days). And the past week has witnessed—as user Nowa points out on a related thread—a "good faith effort that numerous editors have made to help the article comply with Wikipedia standards."
Indeed, I believe that if some of those who voted Delete early in this debate were to go back and look at Occupy Marines with a fresh eye and a fair mind, they'd concede that many of their concerns have been addressed and overcome.
Nobody claims that this article is perfect. But it's worth saving so that we can continue to improve it. JohnValeron (talk) 16:16, 20 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.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Occupy_Marines_%282nd_nomination%29