Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs

Why not move this to draft space?
I am not convesant in article deletions, but I wonder why this article cannot be put into wp:draft space until such time that it is covered by more reliable sources. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think userfying is a good idea. I'd support.  I favor saving people's hard work, perhaps in their own userspace.   Montanabw (talk)  00:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good idea. The user has little history other than advocating anti-science nonsense, so does not need to be encouraged and may in any case end up topic banned. Guy (Help!) 06:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Montana. We don't censor WP. Even fringe subjects can have articles. You just ID as fringe in the lead and the body. GregJackP   Boomer!   08:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not censorship, it's lack of substantive sources from which to ensure NPOV. I already explained that once. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand NPOV as relates to an article on a fringe subject. See Creationism for an example of a fringe subject which is notable enough for its own article. All NPOV means is that we address the subject neutrally, without expressing a POV for or against the subject. NPOV on a fringe article means that we identify that it is fringe while explaining what the fringe beliefs are. If there are sufficient sources for notability, which I believe that there were, then you keep the article. The closing admin judged consensus the other way (which I believe was wrong, but I don't care to contest it).


 * So in numerous cases when an article is deleted, it can be restored to user or draft space so the creator can try to improve it. This is not an attack BLP, copyvio, or another issue where we have eliminate the draft. We're not on a jihad to stamp out those who believe in fringe subjects. Move it to draft or user space, if he can't come up with adequate sources it won't get moved into main space. It doesn't hurt anyone to do that. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The creator is indefinitely blocked so is in no position to improve the article. I am confident that if it was one of Null's other propaganda films - one of his anti-vaccine ones, for example - there woudl be no interest in it here. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, funny how that came about. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. The guy was here to "fix" the fact that we give precedence tot he scientific consensus in matters of science. He isn't the first to do this, he won't be the last, but our bias towards empirically verified reality is by design and our policies against fringe advocacy are correct and entirely in line with the project's core tenets. (see Lunatic charlatans). Guy (Help!) 19:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)