- 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 redirect to Bacha Khan University attack. Strictly speaking, redirect isn't what most people were arguing for, but given that some material has already been merged, I think a redirect is keeping within the spirit of what most people were advocating, and it seems like the simplest way to preserve the edit history for attribution purposes. Of course, the old text is still available via the article history, so if somebody wants to mine that for additional material to merge (or transwiki), there's no reason they can't do that (provided, especially in the transwiki case, that attribution is maintained). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Reaction to the Bacha Khan University attack
- Reaction to the Bacha Khan University attack ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No need for this article as the information exist in Bacha Khan University attack. Musa Talk ☻ 19:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk ☻ 19:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk ☻ 19:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Please speedily delete as it is poorly written and we do not need a separate article for reactions. Many articles for example 2015 Mina stampede and 2016 Ouagadougou attacks have reactions incorporated in them. Current article Bacha Khan University attack already has reactions in it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
DeleteTransWiki, this topic is covered at Bacha Khan University attack. Only with unencyclopedic quotes added. Wikipedia is not the place for a list of quotes, please use Wikiquote. Jolly Ω Janner 22:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)- Keep as per several precedents clearly established in similar articles that were put for deletion in recent times. The article could be improved to make it more prose and less direct quotes, but articles that should be improved should not be deleted. The nomination rationale seems invalid, as the main article does in fact not duplicate the information in this one, but just briefly summarizes it and links to this one for further information. LjL ( talk) 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Does the material in its scope belong on an encyclopedia though? It is almost definitely going to be a list of quotes of foreign ambassadors and heads of states seemingly compiled at random. Jolly Ω Janner 01:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- As mentioned, several precedents (which concern this exact kind of quote collection) show that the consensus about your questions is "yes, it does", and I'm not going to challenge such clear consensus at this time. I don't necessarily see that it must be a list of quotes rather than prose highlighting differences in reactions by various states, and I don't understand the "at random" remark.
LjL (
talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- I believe you are not completely understanding what we are actually discussing. The page has duplicate information from
Bacha Khan University attack. We are discussing that we do not need a separate page for reactions as reactions can be included and are included in that other page.
Sheriff |
☎ 911 | 15:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have any proof of such a consensus? It has not been integrated into any of our policy articles. The randomness is because the article does (and/or never will) define a scope for inclusion (e.g. whose quote is notable enough to be listed). As such, the core of the article is original research and likely to cross into non-neutral POV.
Jolly
Ω
Janner 18:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- @ SheriffIsInTown: then why have you !voted "delete"? You should have voted "merge" if your intention was to merge the content of this article into the main article. There's a definite difference between deleting and merging. And anyway, reactions aren't currently included in the main article to anywhere near the extent that this article does, so, merging would be the thing to do, if anything.
- @ Jolly Janner: the core of this article is reactions by sovereign state governments, and that is pretty clear from all the flags and such that are typical of this kind of article (even though some people don't like it). There are about 200 sovereign states in the world, which makes the scope pretty well-defined and not indefinitely expandable.
- Here are at least some of the precedents were deletion discussions of articles like this one resulted in "keep":
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to 2008 Tibetan unrest
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks (2nd nomination) (snow keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the war in Donbass
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the September 11 attacks. It might not have been enshrined in policy yet but I'd call it pretty compelling.
LjL (
talk) 23:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Listing similar article discussions is helpful, but we should still do a case-by-case deletion discussion, as some events do not receive as much international
quotes"reaction" as others. This attack received far less international discussion than the examples you provided. Jolly Ω Janner 00:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)- Fair enough Jolly Janner, but that sounds like an argument for "merge" (not enough standalone content for a WP:SPINOUT) rather than for "delete". LjL ( talk) 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- @ LjL: I did not vote for merge because I don't know what would be the end result of that, the article we are asking to be deleted is poorly written compiled condolences which are never encyclopedic. I don't want that stuff to be merged with the other article. I fear that "One rotten apple will spoil the whole barrel." I voted "delete" because I know what would be the end result for that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Listing similar article discussions is helpful, but we should still do a case-by-case deletion discussion, as some events do not receive as much international
- Do you have any proof of such a consensus? It has not been integrated into any of our policy articles. The randomness is because the article does (and/or never will) define a scope for inclusion (e.g. whose quote is notable enough to be listed). As such, the core of the article is original research and likely to cross into non-neutral POV.
Jolly
Ω
Janner 18:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- I believe you are not completely understanding what we are actually discussing. The page has duplicate information from
Bacha Khan University attack. We are discussing that we do not need a separate page for reactions as reactions can be included and are included in that other page.
Sheriff |
☎ 911 | 15:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- As mentioned, several precedents (which concern this exact kind of quote collection) show that the consensus about your questions is "yes, it does", and I'm not going to challenge such clear consensus at this time. I don't necessarily see that it must be a list of quotes rather than prose highlighting differences in reactions by various states, and I don't understand the "at random" remark.
LjL (
talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Merge I think this article can merge with Bacha Khan University attack.-- Shwangtianyuan STRONGLY CONDEMNS 2016 North Korean nuclear test 03:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
MergeTranswiki - Most seem to be condolences and some vague offers of support that can probably be condensed down significantly. Though I think it might be useful to include the relevant quotes from each as a footnote for those who are particularly interested in what specifically each said. E.g.: "Statements expressing condolences for the incident were made by representatives from the governments of Angola[quote 1], Brazil[quote 2]....Offers for support in their fight against terror came from Croatia[quote 3], Denmark[quote 4]...." Something like that? AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 06:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Condolences are not encyclopedic.
Sheriff |
☎ 911 | 10:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- @
AdventurousSquirrel: what's your opinion on moving the list of quotes to a Wikiquote article and having an link to such in a box on the right hand side of section on reactions? There are examples of such on Wikiquote at
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Category:Terrorism.
Jolly
Ω
Janner 04:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Good idea, that definitely sounds like an option. Though it's kind of too bad that the wikiquote templates are kind of hidden away in the external links section (as we see in
7 July 2005 London bombings, for example). I think it would both be more accessible for interested readers, and also more effective at dissuading editors from inserting more and more quotes of arguably limited value in the main WP page if there were a more obvious link to the sister site that could serve as a more comprehensive repository for them. Maybe the other more integrated inline interwiki links in
Wikiquote:Templates could be used instead? As a hatnote for the Reactions section, maybe? If that's agreeable for everyone, I suppose I'd change my !vote to Transwiki, technically.
AdventurousSquirrel (
talk) 06:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I was thinking something like
this.
Jolly
Ω
Janner 07:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @
Jolly Janner and
AdventurousSquirrel: Let's not forget that this is the deletion discussion for
Reaction to the Bacha Khan University attack. Wiki quoting
Bacha Khan University attack#Reactions is off-topic here and should be discussed at
Talk:Bacha Khan University attack.
Sheriff |
☎ 911 | 10:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @ Jolly Janner: Yeah, I'd be happy with that. Cheers. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 11:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @ SheriffIsInTown: I don't think it's off topic - I think it's equivalent to casting a Transwiki !vote here at this article. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 11:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @
AdventurousSquirrel: Nope, the discussion is on one page and you are casting a Transwiki vote on the other. Not a proper forum, it should be discussed on the other page's talk page.
Sheriff |
☎ 911 | 11:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @ SheriffIsInTown: Not sure I understand what the argument is. To clarify, the point of this discussion is to decide what to do with the material currently contained in the article Reaction to the Bacha Khan University attack. Options include: Keep, Delete, Merge, and Transwiki. I !vote to Transwiki it. I am not !voting to transwiki the material contained in the section Bacha Khan University attack#Reactions. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 11:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @
Jolly Janner and
AdventurousSquirrel: Let's not forget that this is the deletion discussion for
Reaction to the Bacha Khan University attack. Wiki quoting
Bacha Khan University attack#Reactions is off-topic here and should be discussed at
Talk:Bacha Khan University attack.
Sheriff |
☎ 911 | 10:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I was thinking something like
this.
Jolly
Ω
Janner 07:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Good idea, that definitely sounds like an option. Though it's kind of too bad that the wikiquote templates are kind of hidden away in the external links section (as we see in
7 July 2005 London bombings, for example). I think it would both be more accessible for interested readers, and also more effective at dissuading editors from inserting more and more quotes of arguably limited value in the main WP page if there were a more obvious link to the sister site that could serve as a more comprehensive repository for them. Maybe the other more integrated inline interwiki links in
Wikiquote:Templates could be used instead? As a hatnote for the Reactions section, maybe? If that's agreeable for everyone, I suppose I'd change my !vote to Transwiki, technically.
AdventurousSquirrel (
talk) 06:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @
AdventurousSquirrel: what's your opinion on moving the list of quotes to a Wikiquote article and having an link to such in a box on the right hand side of section on reactions? There are examples of such on Wikiquote at
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Category:Terrorism.
Jolly
Ω
Janner 04:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete this not sufficient for its own article. If there was a distinct, surprising response then it would be notable but there hasn't been anything out of the ordinary. Curro2 ( talk) 22:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I also advocated deletion for many of the "international reactions" pages above, and have frankly struggled to understand the basis of the keep arguments put forward for them. In my view, a list of international reactions which are deeds or actions taken by those countries will generally have sound basis for an encyclopedic article which meets WP:GNG, because in most cases there will be ongoing coverage of those actions or deeds; but a list of international reactions which comprises no more than a list of quotes of diplomatic condolence (which is the case here) should not meet WP:GNG, because other than an initial news report of the quote, there is no significant ongoing coverage covering that reaction. Too often I think keep voters have mistakenly argued that the reactions to the event WP:INHERIT the notability of the event itself. Aspirex ( talk) 04:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete diplomatic bromides and formulaic condolences offer no useful information and have no encyclopedic value. - Zanhe ( talk) 06:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete/MergeMerge/Redirect Since many delete comments suggested merging procedure and merging was also voted many times, I took it to myself to add material from this article to the already existing Reactions subsection at the attack page. I don't think adding these quotes to the main Relations section requires the "closure" of this AfD, because it's such a small amount of text. Anyways, the article can be safely deleted now. Oh and if you feel like some quote doesn't belong, then please remove it without undoing the whole shebang. -- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 05:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- @
Mr. Magoo and McBarker: the article can't be "safely deleted" once you've merged its content into another article, because as
WP:Merge and delete explains, that would violate the license of Wikipedia content. That's why "merge" is a very distinct !vote from "delete". You can, however, "merge and redirect" (which preserves the history).
LjL (
talk) 23:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for that information. I were unfamiliar with that policy. I changed my vote to Merge/Redirect. -- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 02:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- @
Mr. Magoo and McBarker: the article can't be "safely deleted" once you've merged its content into another article, because as
WP:Merge and delete explains, that would violate the license of Wikipedia content. That's why "merge" is a very distinct !vote from "delete". You can, however, "merge and redirect" (which preserves the history).
LjL (
talk) 23:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Several notable reactions and good sourcing. I see no problem with keeping this article of reactions to a notable event. BabbaQ ( talk) 19:33, 2 February 2016 (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 redirect to Bacha Khan University attack. Strictly speaking, redirect isn't what most people were arguing for, but given that some material has already been merged, I think a redirect is keeping within the spirit of what most people were advocating, and it seems like the simplest way to preserve the edit history for attribution purposes. Of course, the old text is still available via the article history, so if somebody wants to mine that for additional material to merge (or transwiki), there's no reason they can't do that (provided, especially in the transwiki case, that attribution is maintained). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Reaction to the Bacha Khan University attack
- Reaction to the Bacha Khan University attack ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No need for this article as the information exist in Bacha Khan University attack. Musa Talk ☻ 19:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk ☻ 19:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk ☻ 19:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Please speedily delete as it is poorly written and we do not need a separate article for reactions. Many articles for example 2015 Mina stampede and 2016 Ouagadougou attacks have reactions incorporated in them. Current article Bacha Khan University attack already has reactions in it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
DeleteTransWiki, this topic is covered at Bacha Khan University attack. Only with unencyclopedic quotes added. Wikipedia is not the place for a list of quotes, please use Wikiquote. Jolly Ω Janner 22:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)- Keep as per several precedents clearly established in similar articles that were put for deletion in recent times. The article could be improved to make it more prose and less direct quotes, but articles that should be improved should not be deleted. The nomination rationale seems invalid, as the main article does in fact not duplicate the information in this one, but just briefly summarizes it and links to this one for further information. LjL ( talk) 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Does the material in its scope belong on an encyclopedia though? It is almost definitely going to be a list of quotes of foreign ambassadors and heads of states seemingly compiled at random. Jolly Ω Janner 01:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- As mentioned, several precedents (which concern this exact kind of quote collection) show that the consensus about your questions is "yes, it does", and I'm not going to challenge such clear consensus at this time. I don't necessarily see that it must be a list of quotes rather than prose highlighting differences in reactions by various states, and I don't understand the "at random" remark.
LjL (
talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- I believe you are not completely understanding what we are actually discussing. The page has duplicate information from
Bacha Khan University attack. We are discussing that we do not need a separate page for reactions as reactions can be included and are included in that other page.
Sheriff |
☎ 911 | 15:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have any proof of such a consensus? It has not been integrated into any of our policy articles. The randomness is because the article does (and/or never will) define a scope for inclusion (e.g. whose quote is notable enough to be listed). As such, the core of the article is original research and likely to cross into non-neutral POV.
Jolly
Ω
Janner 18:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- @ SheriffIsInTown: then why have you !voted "delete"? You should have voted "merge" if your intention was to merge the content of this article into the main article. There's a definite difference between deleting and merging. And anyway, reactions aren't currently included in the main article to anywhere near the extent that this article does, so, merging would be the thing to do, if anything.
- @ Jolly Janner: the core of this article is reactions by sovereign state governments, and that is pretty clear from all the flags and such that are typical of this kind of article (even though some people don't like it). There are about 200 sovereign states in the world, which makes the scope pretty well-defined and not indefinitely expandable.
- Here are at least some of the precedents were deletion discussions of articles like this one resulted in "keep":
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to 2008 Tibetan unrest
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks (2nd nomination) (snow keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the war in Donbass
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the September 11 attacks. It might not have been enshrined in policy yet but I'd call it pretty compelling.
LjL (
talk) 23:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Listing similar article discussions is helpful, but we should still do a case-by-case deletion discussion, as some events do not receive as much international
quotes"reaction" as others. This attack received far less international discussion than the examples you provided. Jolly Ω Janner 00:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)- Fair enough Jolly Janner, but that sounds like an argument for "merge" (not enough standalone content for a WP:SPINOUT) rather than for "delete". LjL ( talk) 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- @ LjL: I did not vote for merge because I don't know what would be the end result of that, the article we are asking to be deleted is poorly written compiled condolences which are never encyclopedic. I don't want that stuff to be merged with the other article. I fear that "One rotten apple will spoil the whole barrel." I voted "delete" because I know what would be the end result for that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Listing similar article discussions is helpful, but we should still do a case-by-case deletion discussion, as some events do not receive as much international
- Do you have any proof of such a consensus? It has not been integrated into any of our policy articles. The randomness is because the article does (and/or never will) define a scope for inclusion (e.g. whose quote is notable enough to be listed). As such, the core of the article is original research and likely to cross into non-neutral POV.
Jolly
Ω
Janner 18:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- I believe you are not completely understanding what we are actually discussing. The page has duplicate information from
Bacha Khan University attack. We are discussing that we do not need a separate page for reactions as reactions can be included and are included in that other page.
Sheriff |
☎ 911 | 15:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- As mentioned, several precedents (which concern this exact kind of quote collection) show that the consensus about your questions is "yes, it does", and I'm not going to challenge such clear consensus at this time. I don't necessarily see that it must be a list of quotes rather than prose highlighting differences in reactions by various states, and I don't understand the "at random" remark.
LjL (
talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Merge I think this article can merge with Bacha Khan University attack.-- Shwangtianyuan STRONGLY CONDEMNS 2016 North Korean nuclear test 03:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
MergeTranswiki - Most seem to be condolences and some vague offers of support that can probably be condensed down significantly. Though I think it might be useful to include the relevant quotes from each as a footnote for those who are particularly interested in what specifically each said. E.g.: "Statements expressing condolences for the incident were made by representatives from the governments of Angola[quote 1], Brazil[quote 2]....Offers for support in their fight against terror came from Croatia[quote 3], Denmark[quote 4]...." Something like that? AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 06:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Condolences are not encyclopedic.
Sheriff |
☎ 911 | 10:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- @
AdventurousSquirrel: what's your opinion on moving the list of quotes to a Wikiquote article and having an link to such in a box on the right hand side of section on reactions? There are examples of such on Wikiquote at
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Category:Terrorism.
Jolly
Ω
Janner 04:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Good idea, that definitely sounds like an option. Though it's kind of too bad that the wikiquote templates are kind of hidden away in the external links section (as we see in
7 July 2005 London bombings, for example). I think it would both be more accessible for interested readers, and also more effective at dissuading editors from inserting more and more quotes of arguably limited value in the main WP page if there were a more obvious link to the sister site that could serve as a more comprehensive repository for them. Maybe the other more integrated inline interwiki links in
Wikiquote:Templates could be used instead? As a hatnote for the Reactions section, maybe? If that's agreeable for everyone, I suppose I'd change my !vote to Transwiki, technically.
AdventurousSquirrel (
talk) 06:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I was thinking something like
this.
Jolly
Ω
Janner 07:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @
Jolly Janner and
AdventurousSquirrel: Let's not forget that this is the deletion discussion for
Reaction to the Bacha Khan University attack. Wiki quoting
Bacha Khan University attack#Reactions is off-topic here and should be discussed at
Talk:Bacha Khan University attack.
Sheriff |
☎ 911 | 10:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @ Jolly Janner: Yeah, I'd be happy with that. Cheers. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 11:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @ SheriffIsInTown: I don't think it's off topic - I think it's equivalent to casting a Transwiki !vote here at this article. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 11:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @
AdventurousSquirrel: Nope, the discussion is on one page and you are casting a Transwiki vote on the other. Not a proper forum, it should be discussed on the other page's talk page.
Sheriff |
☎ 911 | 11:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @ SheriffIsInTown: Not sure I understand what the argument is. To clarify, the point of this discussion is to decide what to do with the material currently contained in the article Reaction to the Bacha Khan University attack. Options include: Keep, Delete, Merge, and Transwiki. I !vote to Transwiki it. I am not !voting to transwiki the material contained in the section Bacha Khan University attack#Reactions. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 11:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @
Jolly Janner and
AdventurousSquirrel: Let's not forget that this is the deletion discussion for
Reaction to the Bacha Khan University attack. Wiki quoting
Bacha Khan University attack#Reactions is off-topic here and should be discussed at
Talk:Bacha Khan University attack.
Sheriff |
☎ 911 | 10:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I was thinking something like
this.
Jolly
Ω
Janner 07:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Good idea, that definitely sounds like an option. Though it's kind of too bad that the wikiquote templates are kind of hidden away in the external links section (as we see in
7 July 2005 London bombings, for example). I think it would both be more accessible for interested readers, and also more effective at dissuading editors from inserting more and more quotes of arguably limited value in the main WP page if there were a more obvious link to the sister site that could serve as a more comprehensive repository for them. Maybe the other more integrated inline interwiki links in
Wikiquote:Templates could be used instead? As a hatnote for the Reactions section, maybe? If that's agreeable for everyone, I suppose I'd change my !vote to Transwiki, technically.
AdventurousSquirrel (
talk) 06:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @
AdventurousSquirrel: what's your opinion on moving the list of quotes to a Wikiquote article and having an link to such in a box on the right hand side of section on reactions? There are examples of such on Wikiquote at
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Category:Terrorism.
Jolly
Ω
Janner 04:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete this not sufficient for its own article. If there was a distinct, surprising response then it would be notable but there hasn't been anything out of the ordinary. Curro2 ( talk) 22:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I also advocated deletion for many of the "international reactions" pages above, and have frankly struggled to understand the basis of the keep arguments put forward for them. In my view, a list of international reactions which are deeds or actions taken by those countries will generally have sound basis for an encyclopedic article which meets WP:GNG, because in most cases there will be ongoing coverage of those actions or deeds; but a list of international reactions which comprises no more than a list of quotes of diplomatic condolence (which is the case here) should not meet WP:GNG, because other than an initial news report of the quote, there is no significant ongoing coverage covering that reaction. Too often I think keep voters have mistakenly argued that the reactions to the event WP:INHERIT the notability of the event itself. Aspirex ( talk) 04:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete diplomatic bromides and formulaic condolences offer no useful information and have no encyclopedic value. - Zanhe ( talk) 06:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete/MergeMerge/Redirect Since many delete comments suggested merging procedure and merging was also voted many times, I took it to myself to add material from this article to the already existing Reactions subsection at the attack page. I don't think adding these quotes to the main Relations section requires the "closure" of this AfD, because it's such a small amount of text. Anyways, the article can be safely deleted now. Oh and if you feel like some quote doesn't belong, then please remove it without undoing the whole shebang. -- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 05:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- @
Mr. Magoo and McBarker: the article can't be "safely deleted" once you've merged its content into another article, because as
WP:Merge and delete explains, that would violate the license of Wikipedia content. That's why "merge" is a very distinct !vote from "delete". You can, however, "merge and redirect" (which preserves the history).
LjL (
talk) 23:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for that information. I were unfamiliar with that policy. I changed my vote to Merge/Redirect. -- Mr. Magoo and McBarker ( talk) 02:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- @
Mr. Magoo and McBarker: the article can't be "safely deleted" once you've merged its content into another article, because as
WP:Merge and delete explains, that would violate the license of Wikipedia content. That's why "merge" is a very distinct !vote from "delete". You can, however, "merge and redirect" (which preserves the history).
LjL (
talk) 23:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Several notable reactions and good sourcing. I see no problem with keeping this article of reactions to a notable event. BabbaQ ( talk) 19:33, 2 February 2016 (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.