Deletion of March Against Monsanto (2nd nomination)

Comment: Suggest a SNOW close based on the above. I have been working at calming both sides down, but a new ANI filing and the new Afd nom here aren't helping. This second nomination is patently absurd in my view, in view of the major consensus in the recent first Afd. It gives the appearance, rightly or wrongly, of an attempt to squelch an article on a significant, well-reported international event that made history, and this attempt further gives the appearance that it is all because it tarnishes the reputation of a controversial multinational corporation. The few opposers are unconvincing... with use of  becoming tiresome to the point of a violation of . As noted, there is some arguable abuse of process going on here. Wikipedia must be better than this, so let's speedily reject calls to delete or merge (which I frankly suspect is the goal here so as to minimize the information) and move on. My ability to observe  is being strained to the limit. And allow me to salute Robert McClenon, the first-time nominator, for his keep !vote here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:TEND||WP:AGF)

Comment: As for the ringe argument: The debate over use of GMO involves both science, politics and Bioethics#Issues|bioethics. Wikipedia shouldn't try to present it simply as a scientific question and make natural scientists the only legitimate or relevant voices in the debate. I also think the march has enough coverage to satisfy ,, and as noted it was an international event with worldwide coverage, which is a special argument for inclusion. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:F||WP:GNG)

Comment: There is absolutely no valid argument whatsoever that the page fails . It passes it, and it doesn't conflict with . Period. Frankly, this AfD is the last thing we need, in the context of the ongoing conflicts over the page and the associated editor conduct. And I want to point out that I, and a number of other editors who have been accused of being somehow hostile to the page or to its subject, have come here to argue for keeping the page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOT)

Comment: do not merge any content, and allow for expansion.  The https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_Against_Monsanto&oldid=566206178 last good version of this article was in the process of undergoing 2x expansion from 20,000 bytes to 40,000 bytes with the addition of about 20 new sources before being disrupted by POV pushers and edit warriors yet again.  IRWolfie's deletion rationale is entirely false and based on an imaginative fantasy he invented that has no bearing on reality.  The sources in this article range from before the protests on May 8, 15, 19, 21, and 24, to the day of the protests on May 25, to after the protests on May 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 through June 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 19, and into July.  It does not fail WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE at all nor does it fail WP:INDEPTH, as we have numerous in depth coverage about the worldwide protests and the reasons for the protests.  Finally, there are ''no'' editors "contending" that the scientific consensus cannot be stated in this article without it being OR, that is another imaginative fantasy that IRWolfie made up.  The fact of the matter is, the scientific consensus has been stated ''multiple times'' throughout the last good version of the article ''using sources about the subject of the protests'', not off-topic sources about some other subject.  That's how  works. To prove this point, the last good version said, "Many scientists and U.S. government agencies maintain that GMOs are safe" (Associated Press), "people can be rest assured that GE foods are absolutely fine" (The Wellingtonian) and "Genetically modified crops are the most tested and regulated crops, and the scientific consensus about their safety is overwhelming." (The Maui News)  So, that's ''three'' examples of reliable secondary sources in the last good version of the article illustrating the scientific consensus ''without'' original research.  One must either assume that IRWolfie doesn't understand the English language or is deliberately making false statements in bad faith to get this article deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Clearly notable with continuing coverage.   is being misapplied
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Strong feelings surround this article, but an impartial read of the text as it is shows it's notable, well written, and broadly balanced and accurate. As regards  specifically, a cursory search of the news coverage of this event actually reveals it has received considerably more coverage several months after the event in the MSM than it did at the time. I'm actually very disappointed to see a second AfD request here. It sure looks like a disruptive nomination to me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE)