Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March Against Monsanto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. WP:HEY WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March Against Monsanto

[edit]
March Against Monsanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not establish notability. A poorly formatted list of cities. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not likely to be fixable. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC) It's assumed you support deletion, because you nominated it for deletion. Stalwart111 01:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • Did this come to attention because I edited it? Aaanyway I have no idea what it is and well it's a protest, we get thousands of those all of the time, so I'm voting Delete and stating I only added a subsection. Of course this could be a completely different article to the one I'm thinking about... Eh. MM (What's up pup?) - (Chocolate Cakes ◕‿◕) 01:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though COI accounts have been adding meaningless unsourced charts and promotional language, a Google search confirms broad media coverage of a worldwide story. Can be cleaned up and improved with multiple references. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Here we go again Notability being used. Millions of people protested this Global Corporate and yet Wikipedia feels its not Notable. There were protest, and yes News Coverage (except for the Main Stream media which seemed to have clamped it all under a News and media Blackout not one American Network covered it yet BBC, Russians, Germans, Japanese, and Australian Organizations DID cover it) . Strong Keep because this protest march was covered on more than 3 continents, by several newspapers. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't that "Wikipedia feels its not Notable", as if a conspiracy is involved, but about editors discussing notability in WP:GOODFAITH. Stalwart111's point below is well taken; though I've voted keep, I realize that this may be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS, and respect that rationale. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Weak delete - I think it was created in good faith but nonetheless seems to serve simply as a WP:PROMO for a WP:NOBLECAUSE; in this case a single event, but held by multiple groups in multiple places. Does that WP:EVENT have a lasting WP:EFFECT? Not really convinced it does. The alternative is that we consider this "loose collective" as an organisation and ask whether it passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Not really convinced it does. I'm open to being convinced but I would probably need more beyond simple proof of its existence. Stalwart111 01:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Stalwart on everything except the "weak" delete. All we have are reports from the organizers about their intention that "millions" would protest and that those protests would be global, repeated by the AP which was echoed throughout the press. This may turn out to be the start of something big but right now it is a very well promoted, one day event, with the nice story of this starting from a single user on Facebook. I was hoping some mainstream news would have picked this up but it does not seem to have bee NOTABLE enough. So, delete, for now. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unique global event, plenty of room for expansion, unlikely to get very much space on the Monsanto article itself. groupuscule (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point of comparison: "Rally to Restore Sanity" was half rally, half satire; only took place in the United States; had 215,000 attendees; and was organized by a TV network. It has a long page that has earned "Good Article" status. The M.A.M. concerns a topic of global interest; took place in numerous cities, in numerous countries; involved 2,000,000 people; and had numerous organizers. Undeniable. groupuscule (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there was a significant response to that event (required per WP:EFFECT). We have no idea of knowing what the effect of this event might be, which is why it probably shouldn't have been created on the day of the event and which is why there are WP:NOTNEWS problems. And the 2 million attendees figure has been confirmed by who? Organisers? So far there's been claims of a couple of thousand, if that, and no verification so far (from what I can see). Stalwart111 04:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Stewart/Colbert rally had a page in place well before it actually occurred. And was never even nominated for deletion.
  • In a quick search of news sources, I haven't seen any that have made an independent tally of attendees at all rallies. "Two million" may be an organiser number... but ABC reports it as fact... this source says "millions"... and hundreds of local newspapers report "thousands" in their area. So, yeah, it seems like it was definitely really big?
  • I second the idea by RoryBowman, below, that we might at least wait to assess future coverage. The Comedy Central rally received that treatment also.<3, groupuscule (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I don't strongly disagree with any of that really - all fair points. I suppose my thinking is that I likely would have !voted for deletion in any pre-event AfD for the Colbert/Stewart rally had it been nominated, per WP:NOTNEWS. It's not our job to report on current or very recent events - we're not the New York Times. We (after the fact) provide an encyclopaedic account of important events. This may well end up being one of those, but I disagree with the idea of creating place-holder articles for events that might one day be considered notable. Even if that day is sometime next week. Stalwart111 06:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please keep the page. The media around the world is really strange ignoring the events held in over 30 countries and over 300 cities. The people are fighting for their rights for safe food against corporations who tried to mess with nature with toxins DNA, toxic herbicides and control food via patents, the involved bio-tech corporations, biased interested investors and speculators, plus hired PR companies are trying to silent it, remove it from the public. The page itself will also under some attack who want to cover it up or twisted the information to minimize harm to their dirty business. If the page is deleted, then it is obvious someone inside Wikipedia have biased interest, too. There are people who have stocks and or funds invested heavily in bio-techs, food manufacturing conglomerates, supermarket conglomerates, etc. Do people still have the sense of justice to do the right thing for the exploited public? Or, at least, allow actual events leave their mark in the Wikipedia? 218.102.187.145 (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion will be decided by WP:CONSENSUS and the weight of policy-based contributions from editors. Claiming some form of "bias" or "conflict of interest" on the part of those suggesting deletion doesn't help your cause. If you want it kept, I suggest you put forward a policy-based argument for keeping the article, rather than a broad attack on anyone who might think this doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Stalwart111 03:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as sufficient for now, likely to flesh out with time. Occupy Wall Street took some time to gain traction. If this merits deletion, it will merit deletion in a year, and no resources are saved by deleting it now. Rorybowman (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wait and see per Rory. Protection could be useful to stave off the COI-SPA assault, though I know this isn't quite the right venue to request that. Ansh666 08:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Robert, the article has changed since you nominated. Could you take a look at it again? I'm not trying to get you to withdraw, I'm just letting you know that it is being worked on. Ansh666 08:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that the article has improved. I am not withdrawing the nomination for deletion, but it appears that after seven days there will be consensus to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you some of those links actually reported on what happened - the rest are either pre-march (repeating the AP story) or parrots. The useful ones are: HuffPost, CTV, ABC (although the "1000s" seems pretty loose based on the video they show), WashPost. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC) (correction, WashPost is just the AP story again, same as HuffPost. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC) )[reply]
Coverage is diverse, but not in depth, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing does not meet WP:INDEPTH. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable international protests. Arguments to delete seem strained in my view. Jusdafax 19:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have given no argument here. You merely state it is notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Broad international protest with broad international press coverage. If Monsanto was less notable, the event could perhaps be adequately covered there. However, that is not the case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be significant coverage of the event. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 22:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP for God's sake! This is clearly more than a list, although it's a bit sparse at the moment. Research, rewrite and expand but do NOT delete. It would compromise Wikipedia's political neutrality if what many would see as blatant censorship was to go ahead. Vox Humana 8' 02:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's certainly notable, given the turnout and press coverage. "In depth coverage" will come, it's only been two days for goodness sake. It seems strange to suggest deletion so fast. Monsanto would sure be happy if the page were deleted, but hopefully their wishes don't govern Wikipedia content. petrarchan47tc 04:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been two days for goodness sake; it seems strange (given WP:NOTNEWS) to suggest creation so fast. And I think you're about the 5th person to suggest a normal (fairly routine and bureaucratic) deletion discussion is some form of "Monsanto conspiracy". Stalwart111 05:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2 Million is what the organisers say, 200,000 is what the other sources say. Where is in the in depth coverage? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It depends which sources you refer, I have read in multiple reliable sources, in the same articles' titles, they were about/over 2 million people. And I bet the absolute majority of the sources reports this number. Even if it is not the truth. Cavarrone 14:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason that is an essay and no longer part of WP:V; we actually care about the truth. It's a common myth that we care about verifiability above the truth. I've not seen ones that say 2 million and speculating is a little odd. Now I imagine that many sources are pretty much press releases regurgitated, but lets not kid ourselves and pretend it was 2 million, when independent people who actually took the time for an estimate say 200k. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IRWolfie could me provide these sources that say they were 200k? You have still not showed any of them. That said, your argument remains just a speculation: many sources are pretty much press releases regurgitated, but other no. As Le Monde, Washington Times, Forbes and dozens of other VERY reliable sources report this number, your concerns don't bother me one bit in the least. Cavarrone 05:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith Sheldon The most interesting man in the world (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable international event. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC) """[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's a NGO group, and it was an event. We could change the page to turn it into info on the NGO and what they do and their events. It shouldn't be deleted. It would be like deleting the page on Greenpeace. --Trulystand700 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being an NGO and an event does not make something notable. Comparing it to greenpeace is a little spurious in terms of sourcing. I can easily find many in depth sources about greenpeace. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A global protest with a decent number of protesters. Received press coverage in my country, which doesn't even have GM crops[1] (although admittedly only in a local paper). AIRcorn (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Worth keeping, plus the movement sounds like it may be more than just a one-day march. Gandydancer (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep International event, - deletion would be an act of censorship.Ekem (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' Notable event with grassroots beginning, and the article seems to have been fleshed out a bit since this deletion discussion began, and I see there is some reasonable discussion at the talkpage. Moreover, the event seems like part of a bigger picture of protest against Monsanto and GMOs which has been slowly building. As the march/movement/article name is inherently POV ('against'), editors will need to exercise careful judgment but I assume the wiki community is up to the task. El duderino (abides) 05:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep' Vast international event, with millions of participants! With good reliable sources, not a single reason to delete but attempt to censor Wiki and use it as political propaganda tool. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It did look like this when it was nominated, so I doubt it was attempt at censorship. AIRcorn (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Users can be forgiven for fearing a "conspiracy" to "censor" this article, given the state of dozens of other articles related to this topic. Articles like Genetically modified food controversies, Genetic engineering, Monsanto, Genetically modified food, Séralini affair and numerous others, display a strongly pro-GM point of view. The group of users that works on (all of) these pages maintains that this point of view is the most neutral, based on academic research. Maybe so. Maybe "GM is safe" is scientifically akin to heliocentrism (as opposed to geocentrism) But the slant is undeniable in either case. groupuscule (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's more a matter of WP's famous institutional bias than a matter of any hitherto unexposed conspiracy where Monsanto and co. have spent years seeding WP with sleeper editors who have racked up thousands of non-GM, non-food, non-Monsanto edits only to spring into action to "censor" MAM this week (though, bizarrely, that is what has been suggested). WP is always going to be biased in favour of government scientific reports and against Facebook campaigns by activists because the latter isn't considered a reliable source. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, nor that it isn't important. But when your call-to-arms is on social media and those social media "sources" aren't considered reliable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia, that's not a conspiracy. That's just a factor of WP not being a source of news, or original research and a hang-over from the fact that WP is, after all, an encyclopedia. So, by all means, keep up your good work and keep finding those reliable sources. But understand that articles like this (based on current events and social media campaigns, rather than years of research) are going to be nominated for deletion and that it probably shouldn't have been created when it was. Should it be deleted now? Probably not. But the "anti-GMO/anti-Monsanto" crowd could have done themselves a lot of favours by getting it right in the first place. Stalwart111 01:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, i didnt saw that. Keep anyway... --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Implied apology accepted. I'm not withdrawing the nomination, but I am prepared to accept the evolving consensus to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are your reasons for supporting deletion of the current version, Robert? petrarchan47tc 23:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at the most recent version of the article, I think that Keep is warranted. Can an admin who is on this page do an early close? I don't want to withdraw the AfD, which would imply that it was a mistake, and it wasn't, but I am willing to have it closed early with consensus to keep because notability was established after the fact. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 30 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/March_Against_Monsanto&oldid=1138052331"