Deletion of Occupy Ashland (3rd nomination)

Comment: There's just too much here, over too long of a period of coverage, to be simply dismissed as a |news story. The question of whether or not it should be a standalone article can be of course handled at the article's talk page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Small event that doesn't meet  and . Obviously, this doesn't apply to ''all'' Occupy events; in '''this case''' it doesn't meet an encyclopedic level of continuing coverage
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE||WP:DIVERSE)

Comment: This topic passes Wikipedia's |General notability guideline. Here are some of the available sources, some of which are comprised of national coverage (Associated Press) and regional coverage (''The Oregonian
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: and Redirect to main Occupy list, per  and --this individual "Occupy" does not have enduring historical significance or a lasting historic effect, and no national or international impact. It has primarily been reported upon only in regional media and the AP article is just using Ashland as an example of a small town, not saying the individual protest is significant--the AP article should certainly be used in the main Occupy article to show how the movement spread to small towns (albeit uber-liberal artsy ones). The info could possibly be a footnote in the history section of Ashland, Oregon, but as the article currently stands I don't see that it had much of a significant or lasting impact there either. Delete without bias for recreation if for some reason the Ashland movement becomes as newsworthy as, say, Occupy Portland|Portland's. Another option might be to make an article that summarizes all the Oregon events, perhaps at 2011 Occupy Oregon protests per Carrite in one of the previous AfDs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:GEOSCOPE)

Comment: I don't think the article meets the threshold for notability in that there isn't "Significant coverage"...and i base this against the Occupy Wall Street article. And in my looking at the article there appear to be only a handful of authors of the sources. It is surely a notable news story for the moment, but does that make it a notable enough subject for an independent article on Wikipedia. I don't believe so. There are too many Occupy article stubs that have no potential to grow past stub status and this article fails to even have a rating or importance or class. We may want to take in all the stray puppies we find, but eventually we know they have to be taken away and dealt with in one way or another. I would hope we could be humane about how we deal with these stubs but at some pint we are going to have to deal with them and I agree that time may be fast approaching. As stated it does not meet , and does not meet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NTEMP#Notability_is_not_temporary notability is not temporary. This just not worth keeping in my view
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE)