Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's March on Seattle

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women's March on Seattle (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)

Not enough contents to justify a separate page: events are covered in the main 2017 Women's March article. — JFG ^talk 10:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of 2017 Women's March locations.WP:POVFORK WP:CFORK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @E.M.Gregory: I'm at a loss trying to understand your use of WP:POVFORK. The guideline states that this applies "when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page". As page creator and watcher since its inception I'm unaware of any content disagreement whatsoever. What's more the same guideline states that this term should not be used "except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing" lest it be seen as disparaging. Perhaps you'd like to change your description of what you see as the problem here? - Brianhe (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A typo, merely, I should have written WP:CFORK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GNG. There should probably be article about most events that attract 100,000+ people. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, we shouldn't. We have, for example, an article about A Capitol Fourth not a series of articles about it year by year. We have Gezi Park protests with a section about the spread of the protests nationwide, NOT an article to each city across turkey. We have an article about Victory in Europe Day, but not separate articles about each city where crowds gathered - although there were 1 million people celebrating in London alone. It is simple more efficient to present material about multiple-venue events in a group article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has 24 sources and is six paragraphs long. List of 2017 Women's March locations is one quick blurb with three sources for the Seattle event. A merge would not be "efficient" even if other considerations like other media (e.g. inline photos and Commons link) and abundant opportunity for future expansion to GA like Women's March on Portland weren't a concern. This nom seems a bit pointy considering a modicum of WP:BEFORE would have told you it was Seattle's largest protest in history. - Brianhe (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Plenty of coverage to meet GNG. It's a recent event, so time will tell if the event is of lasting historical significance. Per the nomination statement, "events are covered in the main 2017 Women's March article", this is not the case here at all; the 2017 Women's March page presently provides almost no context, and only has the name "Seattle" in it three times, once in the lead, once in the sidebar and once in the gallery section. The List of 2017 Women's March locations has a very brief synopsis, which is fine for a list article, but is also short, and merging a bunch of content to the list would make it unbalanced compared to the rest of the entries there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Before starting an AfD on an article that has "not enough contents", please read the criteria for deletion and be aware that AfD is not cleanup. The subject has a verifiable superlative as the largest march ever in Seattle, and substantial coverage in independent sources. Calling it a content fork from a list is nonsensical. It does not contain the same content as the list, so it's not a content fork. I'd hate to see every article that happened to also be on a list somewhere deleted because it was a "content fork". Silly nominations don't reflect well on any editor. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-sourced notable event that attracted over 100,000 people. ValarianB (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, very large event per above. MB298 (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it has had many people come. I think it meets WP:GNG. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plethora of RS generally indicates subject meets GNG DarjeelingTea (talk)
• Keep this article represents a march that was attended by over 100k people in Seattle. It will remain a part of Seattle's history and also a part of the larger story on this topic.Jaldous1 (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No point keeping this Afd open. The sources, the notability are beyond question. Lourdes 05:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GNG has been met. Nominator may not fully understand that Deletion is not cleanup Exemplo347 (talk) 22:15, 5 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.