Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March Against Monsanto (2nd nomination)

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. Per WP:SNOW. Suggestions for merging content have been made, and those proposals can happen at the appropriate venue. Remember that it is impossible to both delete and merge contents, as the source article's contribution history must be retained to provide attribution for the merged contents. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March Against Monsanto[edit]

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

Nearly every source in this article is from a small period of time, a 5 day period at the end of may, failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. More importantly, the lack of adequate coverage and because it fails WP:INDEPTH it means that several editors are contending that the scientific consensus about GMOs can not be stated in this article without it being OR [1]. As such this article inherently fails WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE. It can never be neutral, no matter how much editing we do. It will always contain fringe claims without contextualising them or stating the scientific mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge core content to Genetically modified food controversies. While the topic is notable enough for a section in a larger topic, the lack of multiple high-quality sourcing does not justify a standalone article, and in fact risks erecting a coatrack for pro- and contra- POVs ... which is what we have seen in the edit history here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The core content is always covered there and in sufficient detail. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event itself is obviously notable and its scope international. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 09:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, do not merge any content, and allow for expansion. The last good version of this article was in the process of undergoing 2x expansion from 20,000 bytes to 40,000 bytes with the addition of about 20 new sources before being disrupted by POV pushers and edit warriors yet again. IRWolfie's deletion rationale is entirely false and based on an imaginative fantasy he invented that has no bearing on reality. The sources in this article range from before the protests on May 8, 15, 19, 21, and 24, to the day of the protests on May 25, to after the protests on May 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 through June 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 19, and into July. It does not fail WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE at all nor does it fail WP:INDEPTH, as we have numerous in depth coverage about the worldwide protests and the reasons for the protests. Finally, there are no editors "contending" that the scientific consensus cannot be stated in this article without it being OR, that is another imaginative fantasy that IRWolfie made up. The fact of the matter is, the scientific consensus has been stated multiple times throughout the last good version of the article using sources about the subject of the protests, not off-topic sources about some other subject. That's how WP:NOR works. To prove this point, the last good version said, "Many scientists and U.S. government agencies maintain that GMOs are safe" (Associated Press), "people can be rest assured that GE foods are absolutely fine" (The Wellingtonian) and "Genetically modified crops are the most tested and regulated crops, and the scientific consensus about their safety is overwhelming." (The Maui News) So, that's three examples of reliable secondary sources in the last good version of the article illustrating the scientific consensus without original research. One must either assume that IRWolfie doesn't understand the English language or is deliberately making false statements in bad faith to get this article deleted. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE has "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." We appear to have no high-quality sources offering such follow-up "analysis or discussion". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's total and complete nonsense, as I just provided a dozen high-quality sources offering follow-up analysis and discussion. Plus, the news indexes have dozens more. Furthermore, your line of reasoning is specious. Many of the sources offering analysis and discussion were removed recently for no reason from the article, including Livingston's analysis, "Millions worldwide join March against Monsanto" in The Louisiana Weekly published on 3 June, and Bachman's "Monsanto Protests Not in the News", published in the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune on 6 June. This is the second time you've attempted to make an argument after material has been removed from the article to support your argument. Sorry, but that's dishonest. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can overcome aside your civility bypass for a moment, please humour me: name a single high-quality source which provides "further analysis or discussion". I don't think an opinion piece from the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune would count. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event was discussed in a New York Times article just 10 days ago.[2] TimidGuy (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A single mention in passing does not amount to "further analysis or discussion". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The "international scope" seems a teensy bit overstated per reliable sources, several of the sources include FaceBook, SPS sources, and deadlinks for an ABC News story for which a correction was issued. And the ever-delightful RT.com - which is "Novosti". Badly sourced, relying almost entirely on opinion articles and SPS sources = obvious merge candidate. The NYT mention is not about MAM which is mentioned en passant - it is about the general move to Save the Orange by Altering Its DNA as there is a disease which will likely destroy the entire world's orange crop if nothing is done. An emerging scientific consensus held that genetic engineering would be required to defeat citrus greening. “People are either going to drink transgenic orange juice or they’re going to drink apple juice,” one University of Florida scientist told Mr. Kress. is not about this "march". BTW, Florida ranges are all grafted onto sour orange rootstock, just like all the European grapes are on American rootstock. If one wishes "untampered with" fruits, they ae rather out of luck for over a century now. Collect (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly notable with continuing coverage. WP:FRINGE is being misapplied. GregJackP Boomer! 11:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is something which has received significant attention and coverage, and easily satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. The arguments for deletion or merging do not stand up. "Lack of adequate coverage"? There is a substantial amount of coverage, from differing points of view. Collect's argument is largely based on his/her belief that people who are opposed to "genetic modification" are wrong, but we don't get rid of articles because we disagree with the people they refer to. Also, Collect's statement that the coverage relies "almost entirely on opinion articles" is irrelevant: on a controversial subject, of course much of the coverage will express opinions, and our job is to reflect all of the prominent opinions, not to refuse to report the subject. A much more serious problem is that the editing of the article has been plagued by edit warring, quarrels, accusations of bad faith, and so on, but that is a reason for working to try to achieve a version which all parties will, if not support, at least tolerate: it is not a reason to delete the article. (While finding myself on the same side in this discussion, I should like to distance myself from Viriditas's personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and ad hominem arguments.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more than enough coverage to justify the article, regardless of the problems we've had with it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - I made the original nomination for deletion, when the article was terrible. This article isn't primarily about genetically modified food, but about a protest. The article needs improvement, and has had too much edit warring and too many allegations of paid editing and sock puppetry, but that is not an argument for deletion or merging of the article. (It may be an argument for deletion of some of the editors or their talk page posts.) Robert McClenon (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - I am unsure is i have a voice in this discussion, because i have a conflict of interest (i am involved in the lawsuit against Monsanto and participated as an organizer of this event). i also created the initial entry on MAM. But if i do have a voice, it seems like this event is important for a number of reasons. One is the sheer number of places which did have demonstrations on March 25, 2013 - there are literally hundreds of MAM local FB sites which have reports of their actions. But a second important dimension is that this event was in some real sense a grass roots operation. While some larger environmental organizations and consumer safety groups supported the effort, they neither bankrolled it nor invested significant staff resources in making it spread. Thus this campaign is an important example of the use of social media to mobilize average citizens to political action which is not voting. [If someone wanted to advise me on conflict of interest in this case, i would be happy to understand wikipedia's internal policies. I have read the WP:COI section, and am both disclosing my conflict and asking others to help manage it, as this section suggests.] Paxus Calta (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Suggest a SNOW close based on the above. I have been working at calming both sides down, but a new ANI filing and the new Afd nom here aren't helping. This second nomination is patently absurd in my view, in view of the major consensus in the recent first Afd. It gives the appearance, rightly or wrongly, of an attempt to squelch an article on a significant, well-reported international event that made history, and this attempt further gives the appearance that it is all because it tarnishes the reputation of a controversial multinational corporation. The few opposers are unconvincing... with use of WP:FRINGE becoming tiresome to the point of a violation of WP:TEND. As noted, there is some arguable abuse of process going on here. Wikipedia must be better than this, so let's speedily reject calls to delete or merge (which I frankly suspect is the goal here so as to minimize the information) and move on. My ability to observe WP:AGF is being strained to the limit. And allow me to salute Robert McClenon, the first-time nominator, for his keep !vote here. Jus da fax
Snow Keep and trout the nominator. No reason to repeat arguments well expressed above. This AfD has no basis, and make me question about the competence/good faith of the nominator. Cavarrone 13:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge useful, sourced content into both the generic controversies article AND the article about the company itself. This article is simply a magnet for false science, non-NPOV, Fringe, etc, and really has no place as a separate article as effectively a WP:ONEVENT ES &L 14:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The event is notable. Writing a neutral article that complies with the requirements of FRINGE to make the scientific consensus clear probably requires citing a few outside sources -- this is a special case of its limited coverage, and doesn't imply a lack of notability. a13ean (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination is disruptive. IRWolfie has admitted[3] that he wants to add WP:OR to the article. Failing that, he wants to delete the article. — goethean 15:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Strong feelings surround this article, but an impartial read of the text as it is shows it's notable, well written, and broadly balanced and accurate. As regards WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE specifically, a cursory search of the news coverage of this event actually reveals it has received considerably more coverage several months after the event in the MSM than it did at the time. I'm actually very disappointed to see a second AfD request here. It sure looks like a disruptive nomination to me. DanHobley (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep and trout the nominator - per Cavarrone. petrarchan47 t c 15:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A merge won't work to other articles. Some are two large already. This is what I was told so I created Taco Bell GMO recall after my addition to Genetically modified food controversies was reverted with the same material. There are so many that we may wish to spin a few more out of that article. I am still wondering if anyone is going to take the Monsanto-favouring COI edit claims to Arbcom. If anyone does then let me know.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is absolutely no valid argument whatsoever that the page fails WP:GNG. It passes it, and it doesn't conflict with WP:NOT. Period. Frankly, this AfD is the last thing we need, in the context of the ongoing conflicts over the page and the associated editor conduct. And I want to point out that I, and a number of other editors who have been accused of being somehow hostile to the page or to its subject, have come here to argue for keeping the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This weak attempt at discrediting this notable topic after a clear keep at the prior AfD is a waste of everyone's time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As for the WP:Fringe argument: The debate over use of GMO involves both science, politics and bioethics. Wikipedia shouldn't try to present it simply as a scientific question and make natural scientists the only legitimate or relevant voices in the debate. I also think the march has enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG,, and as noted it was an international event with worldwide coverage, which is a special argument for inclusion. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid policy-based reason for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 6 August 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.