- 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. In my opinion, this article clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS and it is way too early to establish any lasting influence of this purely local event, part of a (likely notable) national event. But as closer, my opinion does not count and the consensus clearly is for keeping this article. So be it. Randykitty ( talk) 17:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
March for Our Lives Portland
AfDs for this article:
- March for Our Lives Portland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NEVENT. No lasting effects as of yet. Event is part of several protests across the nation (we could create many articles like this one). No significant coverage in non-local sources (national/international). I am regretfully nominating this well-written article. wumbolo ^^^ 22:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March for Our Lives Portland and Talk:March_for_Our_Lives_Portland#Propose_merging_into_parent_March_for_Our_Lives_article. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep This is somewhat borderline, but I believe that the article has enough coverage to be kept. There is in-depth coverage on the March. Some of the in-depth coverage is local, but a lot of this type of coverage also exists at the state level [1]. The Portland march also gets some light coverage at the federal level [2], and is mentioned a lot in relation to the general march. As for duration of coverage, the oldest source I found is from March 3. The most recent sources come from mid-April, and discuss the Portland March for Our Lives March in the larger context of state gun control efforts. For example, the article “We will Change the World” (Lake Oswego Review (OR) - April 20, 2018 Author/Byline: Gary M. Stein Section: Education) (use newsbank to view) contained a paragraph on the Portland March for Our Lives in a larger article about the April 20 walk-outs. Finally, this article is for all points and purposes a spin-off of the main March for Our Lives articles. It cannot be merged back in without either lopping off a ton of encyclopedic information or causing the article to have an undue focus on Portland. I believe that letting the article stay as-is is preferable to outright deletion, or the problems that a merge would bring. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 00:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- The Portland article is largely either trivial details such as the fact that permits were pulled or background details which reference the parent article. There is little unique, encyclopedic information in this article vs in the parent.
Springee (
talk) 06:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- The main article is already bloated with details on every march, and I would be opposed to merging even a few sentences into it. Here, the “Demonstration” section alone contains several paragraphs worth of information (all of which is cited to reliable secondary sources). This is a massive amount of information to merge into an article that already focuses too much on individual marches. Further, I would not be so quick to dismiss the information in the “Local organizers and planning.” All of it is relevant background information to the main “Demonstration” section. Furthermore, there is neither an uncited sentence nor a sentence cited to a primary source anywhere in the section. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 17:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- The Portland article is largely either trivial details such as the fact that permits were pulled or background details which reference the parent article. There is little unique, encyclopedic information in this article vs in the parent.
Springee (
talk) 06:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep As per this quote from the lede, "The protest was the city's largest since the January 2017 Women's March on Portland; the Portland Police Bureau estimated a crowd size of 12,000." shows this to be a very notable event. - C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 01:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- @
C. W. Gilmore: many other March for Our Lives protests garnered more than 12,000 protesters. The first part of the sentence fails
WP:GEOSCOPE.
wumbolo
^^^ 07:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- - Not in Portland Oregon, in fact you would have to go back to the large anti-Iraq War protests of over a decade ago to find protests of this size in Portland. This makes it of consequence and notable. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 15:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- @
C. W. Gilmore: many other March for Our Lives protests garnered more than 12,000 protesters. The first part of the sentence fails
WP:GEOSCOPE.
wumbolo
^^^ 07:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: meets WP:NEVENT; sourcing is sufficient for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Merge: This topic is clearly significant as party of a large series of marches described n the parent article. If one reads this Portland article you will find it has little unique content that isn't mundane or non-encyclopedic. The parent article can easily absorb this content (especially if the list of locations, content that also exists in a stand alone article, is cut down from the parent article). The current article has four sections, an intro that talks about the overall marches, an organization section which, other than the names of the organizers, is filled with mundane details like a permit was pulled or the city redirected traffic etc. Here is an example of the section with the mundane or repeated material removed [ [3]]. The article has perhaps a good paragraph of stand alone content that would easily fit into the parent article. Finally, this merge would be better for the reader as it keeps the related content together. Springee ( talk) 06:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 06:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Merge per Springee. We don't need articles on every city's individual version of the main event. Number 5 7 15:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: meets WP:NEVENT; sourcing is sufficient for a stand-alone article. Note that merge often results in a delete, so people voting 'merge' are usually voting to delete. For example, look what happened with the Boycott of Sinclair Broadcasting Group -- the decision was to merge the boycott article into Sinclair Broadcasting Group. So I merged it, (about 16K bytes) then an hour spent merging it was reverted with a mouseclick. In short, the 'boycott' article was deleted. So 'merge' often means 'delete'.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- That is a valid concern but also one that is easy enough to address if a merger occurs. You have the Sinclair article as an example. Was the trimmed material redundant or of little value? What was local consensus at the Sinclair article on the matter? (Edited to make it clear I was still referring to the Sinclair example offered above)
Springee (
talk) 16:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note consensus to not merge
here. ---
Another Believer (
Talk) 16:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- In the above case I was still referring to the offered Sinclair example. In the case of your link to the subject of this AfD, the local consensus comprised largely of involved editors was keep.
Springee (
talk) 17:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
That's a mischaracterization. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)( edit conflict) My comment was w/r/t a previous version of your comment. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC).
- In the above case I was still referring to the offered Sinclair example. In the case of your link to the subject of this AfD, the local consensus comprised largely of involved editors was keep.
Springee (
talk) 17:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note consensus to not merge
here. ---
Another Believer (
Talk) 16:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- That is a valid concern but also one that is easy enough to address if a merger occurs. You have the Sinclair article as an example. Was the trimmed material redundant or of little value? What was local consensus at the Sinclair article on the matter? (Edited to make it clear I was still referring to the Sinclair example offered above)
Springee (
talk) 16:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Selective merge to parent article, as should happen with all these <Protest March><Some City> articles. I marched (not in Portland), so I'm certainly a supporter of the movement. But, the article is just full of trivia. The entire Local organizers and planning section, for example, is just trash. Statements like, According to the Portland Police Bureau, organizers obtained proper permits for the demonstration, even if well sourced, are just fluff. Most of what's in the Background section, is completely generic to the whole March for Our Lives movement. Looking at the Demonstration section, we have such earth-shattering statements as, The rally began on time. Pick some of the more significant events that were specific to this march and mention them in the parent article. The rest is just trivia. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- 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.