Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/March Against Monsanto

Comment from article talk page and subsequent AfD query

 * Comment from article talk page removed by Stalwart 111  03:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * i copied samantha's entry from the MAM talk page. If i surmise correctly the page was considered for deletion because of the table described on the talk page. Deleting this table seems to have removed the basis for deleting the entire entry.


 * this person, Robert McClenon who first considered it for deletion, now expects a Keep outcome and unless it is Delete after 7 days, reached by WP:CONSENSUS as judged by an administrator or simply No Consensus the AfD deletion notice may be removed.


 * please advise if this is a correct interpretation of standard proceedure or if you have a noteworthy suggestion. thank you! --Riverstogo (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's basically the right process - an administrator will interpret the consensus, close the discussion and remove the related notifications from the article.
 * Copying that comment to the AfD was, in my view, a spectacularly bad idea. For a start, the editor openly talks about off-wiki canvassing for "votes". All that does is lessen the weight (which is what needs to be evaluated by an admin) of the keep "votes" already here because there is now no way to tell if someone came here independently or because they were canvassed by this user, off-WP. The second part of her comment was an obvious personal attack, suggesting that editors were trying to "censor" information, were "ignorant [...] bordering on malfeasance" and lacked integrity. I left as nice a warning as I could on that editor's talk page and have tried to assume that her comments were made due to a lack of understanding of WP process, rather than a genuine attempt to attack well-meaning editors. But both could see her blocked and copying them somewhere else simply makes that more likely. I encouraged her to comment here - best you let her do that herself rather than digging a hold for her, yeah? Stalwart 111  03:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)