Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive stack

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. Meets the intentions of the GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 08:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive stack

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

Insignificant detail about the Occupy movement that lacks multiple, reliable sources about the topic to have notability for an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that this is a fairly minor topic. However I checked out the sources, which were established publications, and four of them explained in depth what a "progressive stack" is, and used the term. For what it's worth, three seemed to approve and one disapprove. BayShrimp (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the sources, the "progressive stack" gets one sentence in the New Statesman, some light coverage in the Brattleboro Reformer in an article more about leadership and facilitation at one Occupy group, a dead link for Gay City News, an unreliable source in Truthout in an article about women in the movement, one paragraph in an op-ed from Richmond Times-Dispatch, and one paragraph in a massive feature in a college newspaper. This isn't really "in depth," nor does it meet the standard of "multiple, reliable sources about the topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with BayShrimp the sources are enough to meet WP:GNG for a short article on the topic. It's a mechanism of consensus decision-making, as one source says other countries accomplish the same thing through raising hands higher, same idea. Ideally we'd have an article on this model in general before splitting off named variations used by OWS, but until then why not keep this content as it meets GNG. If it disappears in 5 years as a failed experiment and no new sources it can be revisited or merged to OWS, right now hard to tell. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So where are the multiple reliable sources about the topic? Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just noticed this article was created by Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation, who was not properly notified on her talk page about this AfD. Also noticed this is not the first article created by Gardner that Thargor Orlando has nominated for deletion.[1] Not assuming bad faith as any article is open for deletion, including those created by the Executive Director of Wikimedia, but there is other overlap between these two editors that concern me, such as Orlando's reversion of other Gardner edits such as in War on Women,[2] It's enough overlap evidence to say hey, be aware of WP:HOUND that is all. Also, recommend notify Gardner about this AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I had no idea who made it, and really don't care who it is when it comes to deletions and activity on the site. Apparently being employed by the Foundation doesn't make you immune to articles and edits that are questionable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't matter who creates an article, but the nom (@User:BayShrimp) should've left the author a talk page notification about AfD, it's just common courtesy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see dozens of books using this term, few discussing it in more detail: [3]. Minor topics, but passes GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a thinly-sourced original essay. Not the subject of multiple instances of significant coverage, incidental mentions notwithstanding this fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2013 (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.