- 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. There is a consensus to either keep or merge, but there are fairly strong arguments that the content of the article is too extensive to be merged into anything. That being said, I'm closing this with no prejudice against a merge discussion taking place in the near future, if any editor believes that that's the best solution. ( non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 20:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012
AfDs for this article:
- International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
International reactions to a US-specific event are likely of questionable notability at best. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) may the force be with you 21:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Merge to United States presidential election, 2012. Might or might not WP:GNG, but this should be chopped down since this gives undue weight to other countries. Most of this is irrelevant anyway. epic genius ( talk) 21:48, 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 00:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. It doesn't exist in any other languages, but it's long and would take too much work to merge. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 ( talk) 19:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete – there is nothing encyclopedic here. It's just a grab-bag of guarded, tactful diplomatic statements made at the time by a wide range of political leaders (which doesn't necessarily reflect their actual working relationship with Obama during his subsequent tenure as president); and the stated views of various media organisations whose various preferences and biases will dictate their view anyway. There's no analysis or summary of the topic. This is just a very long and very boring wikiquote page. Aspirex ( talk) 21:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 00:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 00:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge - One could argue that the responses by notable heads of states to a notable event are notable (especially when it concerns the most notable head of state on the planet), but that said, the article is a considerably long list at this point. I would love to see this kept or at least condensed/merged, but not outright deleted all together. GabeIglesia ( talk) 00:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: I was tempted by the merge option until I saw the article. Too lengthy to effectively fit in elsewhere, however it contains good info which will no doubt eventually be removed from publications and servers over time, it's useful and nice that it's somewhat concisely(!) summarised here. Rayman60 ( talk) 00:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. "International reactions to..." is an established article type, the subject is important enough to be worth it, and the material is clearly sufficiently extensive that a split is appropriate--perhaps even necessary. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 30 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 keep. There is a consensus to either keep or merge, but there are fairly strong arguments that the content of the article is too extensive to be merged into anything. That being said, I'm closing this with no prejudice against a merge discussion taking place in the near future, if any editor believes that that's the best solution. ( non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 20:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012
AfDs for this article:
- International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
International reactions to a US-specific event are likely of questionable notability at best. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) may the force be with you 21:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Merge to United States presidential election, 2012. Might or might not WP:GNG, but this should be chopped down since this gives undue weight to other countries. Most of this is irrelevant anyway. epic genius ( talk) 21:48, 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 00:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. It doesn't exist in any other languages, but it's long and would take too much work to merge. 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 ( talk) 19:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete – there is nothing encyclopedic here. It's just a grab-bag of guarded, tactful diplomatic statements made at the time by a wide range of political leaders (which doesn't necessarily reflect their actual working relationship with Obama during his subsequent tenure as president); and the stated views of various media organisations whose various preferences and biases will dictate their view anyway. There's no analysis or summary of the topic. This is just a very long and very boring wikiquote page. Aspirex ( talk) 21:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 00:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 00:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge - One could argue that the responses by notable heads of states to a notable event are notable (especially when it concerns the most notable head of state on the planet), but that said, the article is a considerably long list at this point. I would love to see this kept or at least condensed/merged, but not outright deleted all together. GabeIglesia ( talk) 00:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: I was tempted by the merge option until I saw the article. Too lengthy to effectively fit in elsewhere, however it contains good info which will no doubt eventually be removed from publications and servers over time, it's useful and nice that it's somewhat concisely(!) summarised here. Rayman60 ( talk) 00:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. "International reactions to..." is an established article type, the subject is important enough to be worth it, and the material is clearly sufficiently extensive that a split is appropriate--perhaps even necessary. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 30 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.