- 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 Snow Keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks
AfDs for this article:
- International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Most of these quotes are redundant and warrant no place in an article. Delete per WP: NOTNEWS. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) may the force be with you 21:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:GNG. epic genius ( talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Highly notable responses to a major world event. WP:NOTNEWS states that "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" AusLondonder ( talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:POINTY nomination per this. LjL ( talk) 21:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not
WP:POINTy, the notability is questioned by an editor as is the concept and content of these articles. It is right to seek community consensus rather than over-riding it and butchering articles in an underhand manner without consensus.
AusLondonder (
talk)
21:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Then there should be a discussion in a centralized place (I'm sure there is an appropriate noticeboard) that covers the general "concept and content", not individual AfDs for every article of this type, which takes time and effort to address individually. LjL ( talk) 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to major international events, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep What has changed since the last nomination? Notability isn't temporary. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I previously wrote an essay at Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to WP:EVENT. Fences& Windows 00:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I agree notability isn't temporary for Wikipedia's purposes. PeRshGo ( talk) 04:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing wrong per se with this article. It's well-sourced and the global reactions to such terrible events alone are often widely noted by the press. It boils down to WP:NOTPAPER: although it might in hindsight seem almost silly to meticulously document all contemporary reactions, they are still clearly notable, and since hard disks space is so cheap, why not? -- hydrox ( talk) 16:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete – This is and will never be more than a list of about a hundred very similarly worded expressions of condolence and/or outrage. The whole article can be summarised into a single paragraph on the parent article. Mirroring the argument I've just made
here, this is a long, boring Wikiquote page.
Aspirex (
talk)
22:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Additional comment Having seen that there are a few of these "international reactions" pages up for nomination, I think it's worth putting forward that this one is by far the least notable: the attack was an entirely domestic Norwegian incident with no international consequence, so the international reaction to it must surely be of only passing importance. At least the 2012 US presidental election or the MH17 shooting were events with some international repercussions. Aspirex ( talk) 04:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Responses to an event don't become notable because the event was. Indiscriminate information: a collection of (predictable) response which are run-of-the-mill for such events, where the only rationale for inclusion is verifiability--in other words, everything that made it to a newspaper or website is suitable for inclusion. Drmies ( talk) 01:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - Passes WP:GNG, major attacks comes with reactions which is totally appropriate for its own article. Adog104 Talk to me 20:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Easily passes WP:GNG.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 17:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep *per passing WP:GNG. Why nominate clearly notable articles?-- BabbaQ ( talk) 23:12, 20 November 2015 (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.
- 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 Snow Keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks
AfDs for this article:
- International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Most of these quotes are redundant and warrant no place in an article. Delete per WP: NOTNEWS. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) may the force be with you 21:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:GNG. epic genius ( talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Highly notable responses to a major world event. WP:NOTNEWS states that "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" AusLondonder ( talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:POINTY nomination per this. LjL ( talk) 21:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not
WP:POINTy, the notability is questioned by an editor as is the concept and content of these articles. It is right to seek community consensus rather than over-riding it and butchering articles in an underhand manner without consensus.
AusLondonder (
talk)
21:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Then there should be a discussion in a centralized place (I'm sure there is an appropriate noticeboard) that covers the general "concept and content", not individual AfDs for every article of this type, which takes time and effort to address individually. LjL ( talk) 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to major international events, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep What has changed since the last nomination? Notability isn't temporary. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I previously wrote an essay at Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles aka WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to WP:EVENT. Fences& Windows 00:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I agree notability isn't temporary for Wikipedia's purposes. PeRshGo ( talk) 04:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing wrong per se with this article. It's well-sourced and the global reactions to such terrible events alone are often widely noted by the press. It boils down to WP:NOTPAPER: although it might in hindsight seem almost silly to meticulously document all contemporary reactions, they are still clearly notable, and since hard disks space is so cheap, why not? -- hydrox ( talk) 16:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete – This is and will never be more than a list of about a hundred very similarly worded expressions of condolence and/or outrage. The whole article can be summarised into a single paragraph on the parent article. Mirroring the argument I've just made
here, this is a long, boring Wikiquote page.
Aspirex (
talk)
22:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Additional comment Having seen that there are a few of these "international reactions" pages up for nomination, I think it's worth putting forward that this one is by far the least notable: the attack was an entirely domestic Norwegian incident with no international consequence, so the international reaction to it must surely be of only passing importance. At least the 2012 US presidental election or the MH17 shooting were events with some international repercussions. Aspirex ( talk) 04:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Responses to an event don't become notable because the event was. Indiscriminate information: a collection of (predictable) response which are run-of-the-mill for such events, where the only rationale for inclusion is verifiability--in other words, everything that made it to a newspaper or website is suitable for inclusion. Drmies ( talk) 01:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - Passes WP:GNG, major attacks comes with reactions which is totally appropriate for its own article. Adog104 Talk to me 20:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Easily passes WP:GNG.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 17:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep *per passing WP:GNG. Why nominate clearly notable articles?-- BabbaQ ( talk) 23:12, 20 November 2015 (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.