Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's Climate March (2017)

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. GNG met, references are here, potential isues with neutrality are not a reason for deletion, therefore closing this. Tone 15:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People's Climate March (2017)

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

This article was recently deleted at AfD under a different title (AfD here). It basically seems to be a case of activism by the creator (same editor for both articles) and the rationales expressed in the last AfD debate (WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROMO are still valid. Number 5 7 22:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG (note: article creator). This event is taking place next weekend. Just let the article snowball and let's not waste so much of editors' time like we did with Not My Presidents Day, which I helped promote to Good article status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am expanding this article with the same details you'll find in Not My Presidents Day, Tax March and March for Science -- locations, activities, organizers (individuals and groups), guest speakers, anticipated attendance numbers, etc. This event has already received plenty of press coverage, and there will be much more this upcoming week and during the protest itself. You can accuse me of activism all you want, but I'm working on these articles with neutrality as my primary goal, and was complimented for the neutrality of Not My Presidents Day. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sources, and the event is now imminent, so I don't feel the previous AfD should prevent this updated article from going forward. Funcrunch (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete – The OP is again abusing Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for political advocacy. No amount of gentle nudging and explanation of policies made him change his behaviour. The article has been vastly expanded, yes, so now it reads like a giant advertisement brochure instead of a stubby leaflet. Not encyclopedic (yet): don't use WP as a promotional platform, wait until the event happens, then gather reports from RS coverage and build a decent neutral article. — JFG ^talk 23:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is eerily familiar politically charged ground -- I remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's March on Seattle even with some of the same participants. It feels like it's "beat ourselves up time" on Wikipedia and I wish these things would stop. If I'm not clear, it's starting to look like knee-jerk deletionism on anything concerning political activism, with the lame rationale that future events aren't notable. If this is true we'd better get started on the Rapture, followed quickly I'm sure by Heat death of the universe. - Bri (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy snowball keep. This is going to next weekend. Unless something happens, this is all but guaranteed. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is denying that the event will happen. The issue at hand is that Wikipedia is being used as an advertising platform. Why do we accept this for a political event whereas we would not tolerate it for a commercial event? — JFG ^talk 12:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable, and is talked about in numerous news sources, even if it's not neutral that doesn't mean that It's automatically not notable or eligible for deletion, it just means that the article needs more neutral and/or negative citations rather than an immediate deletion. Personally I don't even agree with what the group stands for but they're notable nonetheless. So I would say keep based on WP:NOTABILITY. --58.187.165.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Crystal is not an issue since this the Climate March has been getting news coverage since January and is almost certainly going to occur. In regards to promotional language, I do not believe that articles about future partisan events are an inherent violation of WP:PROMO, nor do I believe that this article is so inherently unencyclopedic as to justify a nuke and pave. Now, I would prefer for all protest information such as locations, speakers, etc. to be cited to secondary sources rather than the organization hosting the protest. However, this issue can be addressed through editing.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. More to your point about existing coverage, there is now certainly more coverage given the March for Science AND at least one city held a People's Climate March on April 22 (today). In other words, this is no longer future, but ongoing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:32, 23 April 2017 (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.