Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientists' March on Washington

This article was nominated for deletion review on 12 February 2017. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.

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 move to draft space. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists' March on Washington

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

This article is about an event that (according to the article) is not certain to occur. It also fails other tests in the policy about what Wikipedia is not, for example, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are plenty of other articles about Protests against Donald Trump. I don't yet see the need for a standalone article for a march that both is not certain to occur, and has not yet met the notability criteria for an event. All we have right now is a big group of people joining a Facebook group. Gfcvoice (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organizers have said that they're releasing the info on when/where/etc. this coming week. So that will put a lot of the WP:CRYSTAL to bed. Otherwise, check out the sources out there. This clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. The scope, coverage, and depth are all there. Duration will be as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The organizers may or may not follow through with that promise about an event that may or may not occur. There's no need for this article until then. All we have right now is a big group of people joining a Facebook group. Gfcvoice (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - And waiting two days is a problem, why? Monday is less than a week after the initiation of this deletion discussion. WP:CRYSTAL refers to unverifiable speculation, and while much of this is speculation at the current time, it can be traced to reliable sources. I expect that sourced coverage will only increase come the information release on Monday. Dustin (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TOOSOON. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 06:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the information seems like it will soon be released. Also, even if it isn't, a proposed plan is still news and I believe is worth of wikipedia as shown by the citations. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now Violates WP:CRYSTAL policy to create articles on planned events like this unless they're something established like an annual sports championship. Give it some time, and if this happens, I can see no argument against keeping it then. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against reinstitution when/if it comes off (as I fervently hope it will, and with a bang). What would happen to this article if it didn't happen - sheepish retroactive acknowledgement of WP:CRYSTAL and deletion? If it fizzles, it wasn't worth an article; if it works, it's sure to deserve one. Wait until then.- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
zomg censorship!!!!1!!1 just kidding! Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump for now, as it's still a legitimate search, unless/until enough information is released to make an actual article. ansh 666 17:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as concrete information has now emerged, keep as a notable planned event. ansh 666 22:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as noted above 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good idea. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs)

Keep – No need to rush it when an imminent information release is planned just two days from now and this subject is already being given coverage by multiple major news outlets. Absolute worst case scenario, redirect to Protests against Donald Trump#Scientists' March. Dustin (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it happens *and* gets coverage. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX to raise awareness about a particular cause or planned event, no matter how noble it may be. WP was recently turned into a planning calendar by organizers of Donald Trump inauguration protests and the 2017 Women's March, with a detailed list of planned locations and times worldwide before any of those protests actually happened. Let's not make this standard procedure and focus on writing an encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 19:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space until it actually occurs. MB298 (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has already received extensive coverage; will be notable (or at least merger-worthy ) even if it doesn't come off. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space and redirect Let's keep the work (which is referenced) that's gone into the article so far so that when it occurs, there's already a good background ready for the article. Place a redirect to the page of protests against POTUS. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rapidly delete of Move to user space . It is WP:TOSOON and is as yet mere WP:PROMO. 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 [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be consistent. Experienced editors are aware that not only protest movements, but businesses, singers, political candidates and others attempt to use Wikipedia for WP:PROMO. The fact that I support scientists who call this administration's defunding of research on climate change dangerous does not change the fact that WP:NOTPROMO. Standards need to be held constant, just as my obligation to judge an article submitted to an academic journal on merit is constant even when I find the results of a paper sent for review ideologically congenial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space per MB298 and Megalibrarygirl's comments. Can be restarted when event actual occurs per WP:CBALL. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: Would you be willing to request a move to user space? You (and others) could continue to update and bring it back to mainspace as soon as you have WP:RS coverage of firm plans (firm date; public event permit from D.C. Police). I'll be first in line backing you against any attempt to delet at that point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @E.M.Gregory: I wasn't the one who came up with the idea, but yes I do feel this is a good compromise that works for all. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @E.M.Gregory: How does one "request a move to user space"? I'd happily have it moved to my userspace as opposed to deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the page were to be moved at all, it would be more ideal to move it to draftspace, as has already been mentioned. Dustin (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, move to page creator's draft space.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm referring to the actual draft namespace, i.e. those pages prefixed by Draft:. Dustin (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space Its honestly just a bit too soon to have an article on the scientists' march. However, this article could realistically become notable soon after deletion. I believe a move to draft space is therefore the best solution, since the article will not need to be recreated from scratch in the event it achieves notability. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This meets WP:GNG with in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources, including Forbes, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Hill, National Geographic, CNBC, Newsday, The Guardian, CNN, and the Los Angeles Times. Dates for the marches will be announced within the week. While this article is about an expected future event, it doesn't violate WP:CRYSTALBALL as it is notable and almost certain to take place. On Facebook, the event currently has 287,809 likes and 300,631 follows. The Twitter for the DC event has 288,000 followers. This topic also meets WP:EVENT as it has widespread impact and enduring historical significance, as covered by diverse sources. This also meets WP:GEOSCOPE with events planned in most major US cities. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it's not merely about a planned event, but a protest movement that is building momentum. The planning itself is a notable phenomenon with a great deal of coverage in the mainstream media, which, through interviews with scientists is revealing the nature of the conflict between the Trump administration and the scientific community. It's a breaking story, about an ongoing situation that a great number of people are watching unfold. It makes sense that it be covered on Wikipedia, which updates notable events in real time. It is one of the main things that sets Wikipedia apart from other encyclopedias, and is one of the things Wikipedians do best. I'm surprised there isn't an article specifically on the EPA gag order. Well, at least we have this one. The Transhumanist 15:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This march has been gaining in popularity and it is now being reported on by dozens of major news outlets. The date is to be announced this week. Plantlady223 (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's plenty of new coverage out, that's a Forbes article from today. The march has been renamed "March for Science" (I will rename the article if kept), so that's the better search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See United States presidential election, 2020. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
March is set for April 22. That's another source to verify GNG and suggest TOOSOON doesn't apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially since details continue to emerge. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless some announcement to cancel the march comes out. With something this likely, deletion just gives someone the chore of rewriting it. Connor Behan (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event does not exist except in the sense of media coverage -- people walking around somewhere on a given day is not noteworthy, but the fact it is reported by the press is. Even if it were cancelled, that would merely provide more sources to cite! And the sources, discussing scientists' political role and the role of facts and so forth, may be central to understanding the history of this era. Wnt (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Incubate and salt until 22 April 2017. There is no deadline. If the current coverage were notable, the article would be called The anticipation of what might become known as the Scientists' March on Washington or March for Science. This is a news event, not something that we already know the world will care about next year or in five years. Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Unscintillating (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There's absolutely no reason this can't have an article before the day it happens, much like Super Bowl LI has an article before tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 4 February 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.