Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Courcelles 14:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks

edit
International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm aware that we have several such articles, but I believe that they are at odds with WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia's job is not to reproduce what are (in such cases) routine and expected statements expressing condolences and condemnation in nearly identical terms. All of these statements can easily be summarized with little loss of relevant information in a paragraph in the main article, perhaps highlighting the more peculiar ones, such as the Libyan statement.  Sandstein  11:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree A paragraph of truly notable reactions will suffice. By the way, the link to this page appears red in the article for some reason. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡælˈeːrɛz/)[1] 12:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Definitely, as you said, the prominent or outstanding ones (such as the Libyan one) should be included in the main article, to illustrate it better; the large number of similar ones should simply be summarized, so as not to clutter the page; perhaps they should go to a separate page, as "a list of items". BTW, there was a very similar suggestion and a discussion regarding the Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden... and now that "useless page" is ridiculously long (to be merged back), with hundreds of references. --95.103.188.193 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of International reactions articles. The reason we have these articles is that the main article becomes too long if we keep International reactions section there. Kavas (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They do not fall under NOTNEWS, they fall under WP:SPLIT, as they are too long to include in the main article. Thus, they were split onto their own page. This is a common practice and responses from various world government is encyclopedia and important in a number of ways (International climes, relationships between countries, reactions to reasons behind event, terrorism in this case). SilverserenC 22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge does not merit a separate article. Perhaps if it becomes more important. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silver seren. The information is still incoming and such articles would be incomplete without decent coverage of international reaction. Brandmeister t 23:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with its parent article per User:Orderinchaos. Kiddie Techie (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since all this condoling minutiae seems somehow important to some editors, at least it is better off being quarantined here rather than cluttering the main article. WWGB (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the future option to merge. This article preserves and presents content that is currently pertinent and appropriate. Once the news and reactions to this incident have developed and become clear, the context will be established to decide which of this information is actually important to understanding the event and its aftermath, so that it can be merged back into the main article. If we delete now, that information will not only be hid from current readers, but from future editors who will be able to judiciously use that information.
  • Speedy Keep - precedent says "international reaction" articles are mostly kept if they are legitimate forks from articles that have become to big to include a full scope of the sources and reactions. Merge back to article is impractical, as it was forked out for a reason. Nominator needs to read WP:SPINOFF.--Cerejota (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - as per `causa sui'. LiteralKa (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - It magtters not only how a country reacts, but who actualy reacts. It sends a political message. Keep it for ever, please. User: Coquimbano. 05:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coquimbano (talk • contribs)
  • Keep for now, reevaluate later when the dust have settled down. WegianWarrior (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge depending on whether the main article becomes too long for reading. A international reactions page listing the countries'/organizations' reactions separately is a must to ensure a Neutral POV rendering to the reactions section, which is highly unlikely if we editors paraphrase it into prose format. Batram (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — It is not the purpose of an encyclopædia to list a redundant and repetitive litany of condolences. The event itself is notable and deeply sad, but the list of reactions contributes nothing to Wikipedia. An encyclopædia is not a book of condolences or symapathy card to the shocked and stricken people of Norway. It is sufficient to state in the main article that many international reactions were supportive, and condolences were widely expressed. What more need one say about it? If a country said something that was geopolitically or diplomatically unusual or notable, that could be documented, but these international expressions are not notable enough in themselves to qualify for encyclopædic inclusion. The proposer is correct to say that these condolences are routine, expected, and nearly identical — that is to say: non-notable. — O'Dea (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is an historic event, especially for Norway but also internationally. The information on this page is too long to include on the main page, so this page should be kept instead. Michael5046 (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While "the information on this page is too long to include on the main page", it does not deserve its own article. It is sufficient to say that the international community offered condolences and support. An encyclopædia requires no further elaboration. — O'Dea (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Would this be acceptable content at Wikiquote? If so we should probably transwiki it there. 12:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
No, the expressions of condolence are pro-forma and non-notable. — O'Dea (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. Many articles of this kind exist on Wikipedia so why delete this one? Also it's funny how these articles became separate because people were trying to delete that content so finally consensus was reached to split that content into separate articles and now we see merge, merge, merge here.--Avala (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Avala, as the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists policy says, "other stuff exists" is not a strong argument. There is no reason to suppose that any of the other, similar reaction article should exist either. They are all the same. Wikipedia policy ought to discourage them because of their non-notability. Also, the merge suggestion is not that all of this should be re-incorporated back into the main article, rather, this article should be summarized in the main article something like this, "The leaders of many countries expressed their condolences." That is all this article conveys, anyway, at unnecessary and repetitive length. — O'Dea (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its been common policy to have a "reactions to current events in the last few months, though perhaps its should include domestic as well as international reactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeman5685 (talk • contribs)
There is no such policy. — O'Dea (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? *Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden, Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak, International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war, International reactions to the 2011 Egyptian revolution. Seems like enough precedents to me. Though perhaps "international" should be used and domestic added. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent does not equal policy. AIRcorn (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The main article says, "The European Union, NATO and governments around the world expressed their condemnation of the attack, condolences, and solidarity with Norway." That is all anyone needs to know. This "International reactions" is unnecessary when that sentence sums it up so usefully in the main article. All else is repetitive, redundant, and non-notable. — O'Dea (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, at best trim and merge. International reactions of sympathy to major tragedies are diplomatically pro forma, and don't merit an article. I'm struck by the distinction between this, essentially a list of condolences, and a true article [1]. And the capacity that Wikipedia has for unintended satire is evidenced by the inclusion of one foreign leader who tweeted his condolences. Still, given the article's length and copious sourcing I anticipate this will be kept--we could do worse, and often do. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, nothing really unique about these reactions to justify another article. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Speaking of spin-offs, anyone want to weigh in on this one [2]? Once the doors open.... 99.0.82.226 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep: International reactions is an important section for an incident, so it should not be deleted. If it is merged to the parent article, it will make the parent article more complex. Therefore, the best choice is to keep.--Coekon (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hmmm, I'm an English speaker, and I found it very interesting, which refutes your argument. I suspect it is generally unwise to attempt to speak for the entire English-speaking world in your comments. Manning (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Speak for yourself. Just because you have no interest doesn't reflect the general consensus of English speakers. Most other Wikipedia are tend to be a direct translation from the English Wikipedia anyways. YuMaNuMa (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarise the important points and merge. We are an encyclopedia not a directory or memorial site. The list is over detailed. This may be an appropriate level of coverage - while even this may be too much. The article as it stands is not doing a service to our readers, as it is not sifting through the material and picking out the important points - it is expecting our readers to work through a very long list of quotes and data which at around 4,000 words would take an average reader around 20-30 minutes to read, which is too long for the importance of the material. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the attacks have resulted in worldwide reactions in a lot of countries. I think the reactions together are notable enough for a separate article, and a lot of things have been said from presidents, prime ministers etc. HeyMid (contribs) 13:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is nothing notable about these comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8digits (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply a database or list of quotes, most of which are identical, not really an article. In any case, it's not notable. Are there any sources that describe the reaction in detail? I suspect not because there really is nothing to say. Comparisons with other "response" articles, contrary to keep voters, only reinforce my point, because things actually happened with sources to document it. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very important article on the international reactions for this event. numerous similar articles so no precedent for non-inclusion of this kind of articles either.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge data like this is best covered in context of the incident itself and in WP:DUE weight. Don't need to put unnecessary weight on all the punditry and various POVs. Dzlife (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just a list of quotes that say basically the same thing. The list adds nothing beyond what the first sentence in the lead says and that is already in the main article. AIRcorn (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given that the alleged killer alleges that the reaction was a key motivation, this is important. I suggest expanding to include the reaction of European far-right organizations (which are more varied and nuanced than that of national politicians). Merging back into the main article would make it too long and cumbersome. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a major European event as evident by the number of European government statements and reponses. If we mrged it it would take up too much space. Definitely keep. Pass a Method talk 12:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep currently it's just a quotefarm, but when analysis is made - especially of the timing of Middle East responses, many made only after the perp was known not to be of Middle Eastern origin - it may be a quite informative article. Right now, the article - devoid of analysis - is about as informative as "water is wet"; but we judge articles not as they are but as they optimally could be. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a massive event for Norway, which usually never suffers from this type of incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.88.31 (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above arguments. NorthernThunder (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_reactions_to_the_2011_Norway_attacks&oldid=1221153600"