- 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- International reactions to the war in Donbass ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
So many excessive quotes, many from unimportant countries (in relation to the war) is very unencyclopedic. Notability for a great many of these quotes is highly questionable. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) may the force be with you 21:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:GNG. epic genius ( talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:POINTY nomination per this. LjL ( talk) 21:52, 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) 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to wars and crises, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep A major world event with significant diplomatic consequences. What is an "important" country, User:Kenobi5487? Could you name them? AusLondonder ( talk) 22:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep A war is a major event, notability also isn't temporary. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:41, 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 00:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Let me get this straight: I had no idea we had this many such articles. What is the rationale? Do you realize that this means that every single historical event now gets an "Reactions to..." event? and if you manage to get enough quotes together, you can have a "Reactions to..." every single hit record. Or TV show. There are no criteria for inclusion in such articles, except for "it's verified"--in other words, it's indiscriminate. Drmies ( talk) 02:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
-
User:Drmies, Comparing a war with significant diplomatic consequences to a television programme is unbecoming as is suggesting a "hit record" is a "historical event".
AusLondonder (
talk)
05:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not comparing the events, only the indiscriminate nature of the responses to the events. And I'm not the one comparing hit records to historical events: if you compare the amount of space devoted to one- (or two-) hit wonders (and their singles, and their discographies, and their List of Awards, and their List of Compositions) to the space devoted to truly meaningful persons and events on a grander scale, the scale of history, you'll see that Wikipedia's recentism and pop culture are responsible for trivializing the historical events.
Drmies (
talk)
05:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you, Drmies. Indeed, the main reason why this article was created was to get these endless and rather pointless quotes out of the main War in Donbass article, which had become bloated with them. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not comparing the events, only the indiscriminate nature of the responses to the events. And I'm not the one comparing hit records to historical events: if you compare the amount of space devoted to one- (or two-) hit wonders (and their singles, and their discographies, and their List of Awards, and their List of Compositions) to the space devoted to truly meaningful persons and events on a grander scale, the scale of history, you'll see that Wikipedia's recentism and pop culture are responsible for trivializing the historical events.
Drmies (
talk)
05:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:17, 19 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- International reactions to the war in Donbass ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
So many excessive quotes, many from unimportant countries (in relation to the war) is very unencyclopedic. Notability for a great many of these quotes is highly questionable. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) may the force be with you 21:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:GNG. epic genius ( talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:POINTY nomination per this. LjL ( talk) 21:52, 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) 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to wars and crises, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep A major world event with significant diplomatic consequences. What is an "important" country, User:Kenobi5487? Could you name them? AusLondonder ( talk) 22:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep A war is a major event, notability also isn't temporary. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:41, 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 00:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Let me get this straight: I had no idea we had this many such articles. What is the rationale? Do you realize that this means that every single historical event now gets an "Reactions to..." event? and if you manage to get enough quotes together, you can have a "Reactions to..." every single hit record. Or TV show. There are no criteria for inclusion in such articles, except for "it's verified"--in other words, it's indiscriminate. Drmies ( talk) 02:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
-
User:Drmies, Comparing a war with significant diplomatic consequences to a television programme is unbecoming as is suggesting a "hit record" is a "historical event".
AusLondonder (
talk)
05:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not comparing the events, only the indiscriminate nature of the responses to the events. And I'm not the one comparing hit records to historical events: if you compare the amount of space devoted to one- (or two-) hit wonders (and their singles, and their discographies, and their List of Awards, and their List of Compositions) to the space devoted to truly meaningful persons and events on a grander scale, the scale of history, you'll see that Wikipedia's recentism and pop culture are responsible for trivializing the historical events.
Drmies (
talk)
05:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you, Drmies. Indeed, the main reason why this article was created was to get these endless and rather pointless quotes out of the main War in Donbass article, which had become bloated with them. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not comparing the events, only the indiscriminate nature of the responses to the events. And I'm not the one comparing hit records to historical events: if you compare the amount of space devoted to one- (or two-) hit wonders (and their singles, and their discographies, and their List of Awards, and their List of Compositions) to the space devoted to truly meaningful persons and events on a grander scale, the scale of history, you'll see that Wikipedia's recentism and pop culture are responsible for trivializing the historical events.
Drmies (
talk)
05:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:17, 19 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.