- Scientists' March on Washington (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I propose for this AfD discussion closure to be overturned to a no consensus result. Per the overall arguments presented in the discussion, this is the most accurate outcome. Of note is that while the delete and drafity !voters have their points, many later !votes in the discussion were consistently for retaining the article in main namespace, and the draftify !votes are actually a minority in the discussion. Furthermore, the topic has continued to receive significant coverage in reliable sources, such as in Time, Voice of America, The Washington Post, and others.
Muboshgu queried the closer about the article being draftified to Draft:Scientists' March on Washington, but the closer stated that the intent of their close was for the article to be improved (diff). However, consensus in the discussion does not support this close. Ultimately, a no consensus closure is the most accurate relative to the discourse that occurred in the overall discussion.
As an unrelated side note, it's also ironic that after the Trump administration placed a gag order on the EPA, a basis for the upcoming event, that this article was then draftified, where nobody will see, edit or improve it. North America1000 17:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking about taking this to deletion review, or just doing a little work on the draft and moving it back to article space. Hadn't gotten around to either yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why this is here. I closed according to the consensus, that it needed further work, not deletion. Some small changes have been made. The proper course is to just improve it further and move it back. I didn't protect against re-creation. No admin action is needed. Northamerica1000 you didn't even ask me before bringing it here. If you think the current version is sufficiently NPOV and meets the objections at the afd, then bring it back and see whether it is nominated again. I don't actually advise it without further work, for it has an unambiguous one-sided political tone, making the implication that every decent person would support this action. It is immaterial whether or not I or any one of us, or even all of us, agree with that political statement. WP is not the place to meet it. We don't praise good people and things and politics; we just give the information about them, expecting that the readers will come to their own conclusions. There's no need to slant an article towards the right side, even the obviously right side. The only way WP has a political position is our devotion to free information--that's information, not advocacy. To the extent that events in public life make this difficult, it's appropriate for the WMF to defend our mission. It's not to be done by biasing our encyclopedia articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG: I just feel that a no consensus close is the most accurate relative to the overall commentary that transpired. Since another user (Muboshgu) already discussed the matter with you, and you stood by leaving the article in draft namespace (diff), I just took this directly to DRV. Next time I'll discuss more first. Users opining for draftification are a minority within the discussion, and upon a close reading of the discussion, only one !vote for moving to user space stated that the article should be improved ("It can come back to mainspace when there is 1.) a firm date. 2.) a parade permit 3.) ongoing, significant coverage. As present, this is an idea in gestation"). None of the other draftify !votes state anything about draftifying so it can be improved at all, just that it's essentially "too soon" for an article. However, many users opined for the article to be retained and main namespace, and the draftification result comes across as discounting the rationales presented by the many keep !voters in the discussion. North America1000 04:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. A fairly rough a consensus, and a better close would have included a detailed rationale for such a well contested question, and another admin might have called"no consensus", but it is within admin discretion. The topic is inherently problematic because it is speculative future. Unlike the the 2020 presidential reaction, this march may not occur. People pointing to "coverage" were pointing to coverage of speculation, which is not reliable for the event. The draft's first reference "Are scientists going to march on Washington?" begins "The next big march on Washington could flood the Mall with scientists. It's an idea spawned on Reddit ..." Many of the "keep" !votes reflected the speculative sourced content "Keep, especially since details continue to emerge" & "Keep unless some announcement to cancel the march comes out. With something this likely, deletion just gives someone the chore of rewriting it". These severely weaken the "keep" arguments and fit squarely with the draftify close. Actual verified (not speculative) content can be added to Protests_against_Donald_Trump#Planned_protests. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe: I don't view the keep !votes as weakened at all, because new and copious coverage in reliable sources indeed continues to occur (e.g. "especially since details continue to emerge"), and the event is virtually certain to occur. Note some examples below of more recent coverage.
- Endorse Moving the work to draft space and putting a redirect in to an appropriate article is a proper result, given the consensus. While it might technically meet WP:CRYSTAL with the RS coverage, there seems to be a very low bar for getting political protest press releases into the news right now. Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse – As mentioned by several editors in the discussion, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political events, no matter how well-intentioned. We are also not a place to right great wrongs. Sure, it's likely that this event will happen and get some traction, but comparing it to the scheduled 2020 presidential election or 2020 Olympic Games is like comparing apples to dwarf planets.
 It is particularly troubling to see some commenters argue that Wikipedia *must* cover such political activism even before it happens. Recently we saw the List of 2017 Women's March locations blatantly using Wikipedia as an advertising platform complete with the detailed calendar of all planned protest in hundreds of places and calls to meet at 9:30 sharp; this trend is not healthy for anyone. We are writing a neutral encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a pamphlet. A few lines in the Planned protests section of the Protests against Donald Trump article are sufficient. But ironically, the entry about the Scientists' March was recently removed from there, citing the non-partisan nature of this march.[1] — JFG talk 09:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
