Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:55, 2 November 2011

99 Percent Declaration

• Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration
• Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration (2nd nomination)

99 Percent Declaration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The topic is not indepent of Occupy Wall Street and does not independently meet WP:GNG. Two users, including myself, set it up as a redirect and article creator without consensus, put the text back. Article appears to have been WP:POINT created in order to get around consensus regarding the inclusion of these sources on Occupy Wall Street. LauraHale (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to Occupy Wall Street. Pointy behavior at best, a POV fork at worst. None of the secondary sources do anything more than mention the phrase "99 Percent Declaration." The article does not satisfy WP:GNG by itself. Trusilver 03:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "do anything more than"? Dualus (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep because per both WP:GNG and the specific notability criteria at WP:WEB, the document has been the subject of these non-trivial published reliable WP:SECONDARY sources independent of the site itself:

1. Walsh, J. (October 20, 2011) "Do we know what OWS wants yet?" Salon
2. Kennedy, A.L. (October 22, 2011) "Protesters Plan to Occupy Williamsburg" Williamsburg Yorktown Daily
3. Duda, C. (October 19, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Call for National General Assembly, Put Forward Possible Demands" Juvenile Justice Information Exchange
4. Lopez, L. (October 19, 2011) "Finally! The Protesters Have Drafted A Set Of Demands For The Jobs Crisis" Business Insider
5. Haack, D. (October 24, 2011) "How the Occupy movement won me over" The Guardian

Moreover, the nominator refuses to respond to questions on Talk:99 Percent Declaration and her talk page and I believe she has been canvassing people with whom her only interactions have not been independent of her interactions with me. Dualus (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The first and second source doesn't give any information other than the phrase "99 Percent Declaration". The third source says straight out that the Occupy Wall Street movement hasn't officially adopted any specific demands yet and specifically states: "The list online is cleared marked as a “suggested list of grievances” and not as the platform for the movement that claims to represent “99 percent” of the country. The final list, to be voted on by the National General Assembly, may or may not include 20 proposed reforms." Therefore, the article's first line that suggests this "declaration" is connected to the Occupy movement is patently false. The fourth and fifth sources make no mention of the 99 Percent Declaration at all. Trusilver 03:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also... please limit yourself to discussing the merits of the article's notability rather than making ad homenium attacks against the nominator. Trusilver 03:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The first source says:

"There’s a “99 percent declaration” that calls for a national general assembly of representatives from all 435 congressional districts to gather on July 4, 2012, to assemble a list of grievances and solutions that isn’t official. But the draft list overlaps in some ways with Reich’s proposal: public works programs, tax hikes, debt forgiveness and lots of muscular ways to get money out of politics. An OWS demands working group proposed a “New New Deal,” with public works programs, tax hikes and defense cuts similar to what Reich is proposing."

That is clearly more information than the phrase. The second source says:

"organizers have been trying to get participants to vote on a list of grievances, and a “99 percent Declaration” has indicated an intention to convene on July 4, 2012 to form a National General Assembly tasked with creating a nonpartisan independent political party."

That is also clearly more information than the phrase alone. As for the third sources, did you notice the section heading in 99 Percent Declaration#Suggested grievances? The other sources also describe the same document. If you can not verify that by their content, that doesn't matter, because the threshold of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources is met. Dualus (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect per the nom's concern about POV forks and POINTY behavior. If, after this, there are continuing issues with people recreating the page then it can be protected if necessary. Shadowjams (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Which sources do you believe involve POINTY behavior? Dualus (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe you misunderstand WP:POINT. It's a reference to on wiki actions used to create a point. It appears there was discussion about this, and there was disagreement with the consensus so they went ahead anyway. I'm not involved in the original discussion so I have no idea the intricacies, but what the nom says checks out. Shadowjams (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
      • The nominator wrote, "Article appears to have been WP:POINT created in order to get around consensus regarding the inclusion of these sources on Occupy Wall Street." Are you saying that you have verified that statement, and it, "checks out," but you don't know which sources lacked consensus to include? Even if there was not consensus, which can change, to include such sources in Occupy Wall Street, why would that mean that there is no consensus to include such sources in 99 Percent Declaration? Dualus (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep First of all, the general Occupy Wall Street is beyond unwieldy. Instead of larding more onto one article, it needs to be broken up into various subjects with lead paragraphs explaining the generalities of the subject and a link. This is a core element, the closest thing to a unified platform for the Occupy movement. While it emanated from the first of such protest locations, its the closest document any have to offer the media's request for an agenda for the otherwise poorly defined protests. In WP terms, it has received significant coverage. Here's more sources: , which has dozens of mirrors. . A side note; under the burden of consensus, its quite an achievement for the General Assembly to come up with anything resembling a unified statement. That in itself makes it significant. Trackinfo (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional sources. I think the current.com video will make a good external link. Dualus (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Misplaced Pages:Activist POV pushing, non notable fringe document being given undue weight to a movement that has distanced itself from the authors and the document. BLP issues concerning Larwrence Lessig. Possible conflict of interest in creating the article. User may be involved in organizing a real world activity through Misplaced Pages.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What real world activity to you think I am trying to organize? And why do you say BLP issues for Lawrence Lessig? Dualus (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment- Thank you for asking these two specific questions.
    • First, you are using Misplaced Pages to organize your personal Point of View that the document has weight and notability, where an ongoing dispute, brought up by yourself in a number of Noticeboard locations has centered on these subjects, which are clear Misplaced Pages:Activist. In doing so you are actively partaking in trying to effect a real world event through your edits and the creation of this article.
    • Second Activists treat the BLPs of their ideological adversaries as dumping grounds for almost any kind of pejorative or impeaching information they can find. It doesn't really matter how tenuous the sources are. They could be posts from an advocacy blog hosted by a political lobbying organization, a professor's self-published slide show, or the subject's signature on some controversial petition, it's all good to go as far as they are concerned. Any attempt to remove or qualify some of the negative information or balance out the BLP in question, even a little, is met with cries of "whitewash!" and WP:NOTCENSORED by the activists on each others talk pages and a quick call to action.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Additional reasoning to delete include the copyright violations of lifting the text directly from the website the document is found. The section "Constituional amendment" is simple copy paste from the Occupy Wall Street article that was deleted as undue weight to the subject...Lessig Himself. It is also added in similar fasion, if not exactly on the living person's page, Lawrence Lessig..--Amadscientist (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
      • You say I am using Misplaced Pages to organize my "personal Point of View that the document has weight and notability" -- how is that a "real world activity"? I am just an editor trying to improve the encyclopedia. The document is notable per the notability criteria, and it's not POV pushing to try to get an article about it written well. Which specific statements in Lessig's article do you think raise BLP concerns? I'm not sure you understand what editors generally mean by BLP concerns. Have you read WP:BLP? As for the copyvio concerns, it's excerpted with considerable elision and thus is usable under the fair use doctrine because the article is about a primary source. Dualus (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Fair use doctrine is not Misplaced Pages policy and you have to do more than use the text from the document as copy paste to create an article. Does not fall under fair use for Misplaced Pages. You are attempting to "prop up" infromation to give undue weight to Lessig for this document. Please explain why he is even in this artcile you have created if not to push the point of view that you hold. Why not mention the author...David Haack, instead, who is credited in numerous sources as having written this document as far back as August. Could it be that he is not a notable figure? Could it be that this was only presented at some point and then turned down by the governing body of OWS? It could and probably is the reason. You are pushing an article to effect the events of the movement...not record or document them.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

          Are you saying that I am pushing a point of view to be able to author the document I'm trying to document? That's preposterous. If I were authoring that document it would mention instant runoff voting as part of electoral college reform. Also I would find some source like for the Republican perspective on the part about mortgage risk per WP:NPOV. Dualus (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

          • That information supports the idea that this is a WP:POVFORK, and should be deleted as failing to meet WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
            • No, it does not. I give equal weight to anyone with a pending constitutional amendment similar to the one called for in the Declaration. A POVFORK is a different article about the same subject from a different point of view, so there would have to be another article on the Declaration but this is the only one. Dualus (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
              • Yes, it does so! The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete We have had endless problems with this editor at the OWS article. He starts thread after thread forcing editors to engage and then when everyone is worn down he accuses them of not answering his posts. Eventually, when he doesn't get his way, he goes to other articles such as the Occupy movement article, or in this case starts a new article, to start the process all over again. We are currently having a discussion at the OWS article about whether or not this information should even be included in that article. Most of his references are not acceptable to use as sources. Gandydancer (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you have so many problems with me as a contributor. Do you have any problems with the content of the article you want to delete? Dualus (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates