- 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 delete. Consensus is clearly to delete, however I am happy to provide a copy if anyone wants to make a (very) selective merge to main. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings
- Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another non-encyclopedic quote farm threaded together by WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Please recognize this: the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings is without a doubt notable; dozens of leaders saying basically the same thing -- not so much if we choose to follow WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTINHERITED. If possible, keep your "but there is precedent" comments to a minimum. Precedent to keep poorly-constructed quote farms is not one I, or anyone, should like to follow. Instead, give me policy, or give me death! TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 19:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note - The actual article rather nicely, and more importantly, academically summarizes the response to the attack in a well-constructed paragraph: "The attack also sparked condemnation and expressions of condolence from numerous governments and heads of state, as well as international bodies such as NATO, the Council of Europe, and the European Union who also condemned the attacks and/or expressed condolences to the victims' families". TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 19:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep TGS is not following proper channel. This should be discussed as a merger rather than as a AfD. I don't know why you are using your all energies to delete or minimize the terrorism related information. These are reactions to one of the notable terrorism act done in the recent history. The article only need a decent prose which we can add if we stop wasting our time on these kind of AfDs. Greenbörg (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Greenbörg if you are not going to bother to read my rationale, why do you feel obligated to cast a vote? As I already stated, the attack is without a doubt notable. That does not mean quotes saying the same thing are, and I applied the appropriate policies to make that point. "Decent prose" does not make this any more than an indiscriminate collection loosely conjoined together by WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 12:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Merge with article on 2010 Moscow Metro bombings - this article already has a sub-heading on reactions to the event. Vorbee ( talk) 18:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep TGS is not following proper channel.AfD is not to be used as a merg discussion. Those discussions are held at the talk page. I see no reason for deletion or merge anyway. Good sources. Article is informative BabbaQ ( talk) 20:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- BabbaQ I never proposed merging this article, once. You obviously did not read my rationale or the corresponding policies I selected to construct my statement. Perhaps you will benefit from reading WP:ATA. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete If someone wants to vote merge, you should say so, Afd's can legitimately result in a merge or redirect and often do so. The nom has made valid points about indiscriminate and WP:NOTINHERITED, I seriously doubt there is significant coverage of the coverage of a terror incident which does not focus on the terror incident, but infact focuses on the reaction. Nor do I see why the event should be split over several articles. This article is well constructed with the little flags, but ultimately seems pointless. Α Guy into Books™ § ( Message) - 07:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- an indiscriminate collection of information, not relevant to the readers. The article mostly consists of republished press releases such as "...strongly condemned the blasts and offered his condolences..." etc. etc. What were these entities supposed to do, endorse the terror attack? (In any case, if any org did happen to praise the bombing, this occurrence would be notable enough to include into the main article.) K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per K.e.coffman. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep While it represents a new type of article for Wikipedia and delves into the realm of Wikiquote, I think it still meets an encyclopedic need, and I would like to see the equivalent for other events. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) what is that encyclopedic need? Several quotes that say essentially the same thing? TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that this is a "new type of article for Wikipedia". See Category:Reactions to 2000s events and Category:Reactions to 2010s events. However, a number of those other reaction articles have been controversial at AfD due to the fact that they often go into long lists of countries with government officials from each country condemning the attack and offering condolences to the victims, which some editors including myself find unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing, both of which resulted in "no consensus" results. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per reasons given above. Shelbystripes ( talk) 05:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I took the effort to actually read the contents of this article (OK, I lie, I stopped halfway as life is too short) and haven't found a single statement that was not WP:ROUTINE WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:PRIMARY condemnation of the act, expression of solidarity with Russian people, or determination to continue anti-terrorist campaign. I don't think the readers will be too disappointed by eventual deletion of this article either... all 1219 of them in 2016 (hard to tell how many of them made it to the end of the article). No such user ( talk) 12:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- strong keep it is notable to the IR students as the other such articles. This is after all an encyclopaedia for students everywhere, not just editors. we update this for the world at large, not just us. It si important to nore who sad what NOT who said!
Lihaas (
talk) 02:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
-
Lihaas...what? Care to rephrase or apply a policy so I can understand your argument for keeping this quote farm?
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 05:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Words of NOTABLE people indicate to IR (international relations) students indicative of what policy is in their Masters programs (I was in the conflict studies programme at
UCD and did a course, with getting an A+, under
Gerard Casey (philosopher) (who has a WP page)), but I am aware of what poli sci colleagus did). it is important of who said what and not what was said. they use it for their masters theses.
First day lecture started with writing on the board "states are criminal organisations" [1] (fun weekly responses to the readings...and his responses) (we were 2/4 of anarcho-capitalists on campus)...that said Ive also worked with Walid Phares who is a neocon at FDD (See WP history in June 2007 at the page...propaganda it was (but I had moved to biz development except Monday cataloguing weekly media appearances)). Lihaas ( talk) 06:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)- I am sure glad I am not on your course... I cannot quite understand why these masters degree political science students (I study law btw) would be using Wikipedia as a source, nor why this article is of any use to normal people, who are not writing a thesis. Unless I am mistaken, there are journals and newspapers which follow the political position of particular parties and personages, perhaps you could use those. Regarding your assertion of "This is after all an encyclopedia for students everywhere" I think you are getting us confused with Wikiversity. Α Guy into Books™ § ( Message) - 11:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Words of NOTABLE people indicate to IR (international relations) students indicative of what policy is in their Masters programs (I was in the conflict studies programme at
UCD and did a course, with getting an A+, under
Gerard Casey (philosopher) (who has a WP page)), but I am aware of what poli sci colleagus did). it is important of who said what and not what was said. they use it for their masters theses.
-
Lihaas...what? Care to rephrase or apply a policy so I can understand your argument for keeping this quote farm?
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 05:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect - These articles are becoming popular solutions to the issue of long quote-farm reactions usually presented in the respective main articles. Instead, however, these articles just present that issue within themselves. As it is, these articles are not encyclopedic in themselves per the arguments of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and quotes should not dominate an article. I am baffled by a couple !votes up above as AfD is a perfectly legitimate forum for this discussion. If you think merge or redirect is a superior solution to deletion, then you should say so in your !vote. I'm okay with a merge happening if anything of use can be transferred, more importantly though, I think this page should be left as a redirect as has been done with articles such as Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack and Reaction to the 2017 Finsbury Park attack. There is a lot of material hidden inside the revisions to the page, some of it may become of use later on, if not now. Besides, redirects are cheap. Mr rnddude ( talk) 11:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete As the alternative would be death to the Slick, which no one wants. Quote lists like these belong in Almanacs, not in Encyclopedias. Selective merges and redirects per ATD are quite allright with me. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. This is adequately covered in the main article: "The attack also sparked condemnation and expressions of condolence from numerous governments and heads of state, as well as international bodies such as NATO, the Council of Europe, and the European Union who also condemned the attacks and/or expressed condolences to the victims' families." We are not a quotation aggregator or a newspaper. Sandstein 10:33, 28 September 2017 (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 delete. Consensus is clearly to delete, however I am happy to provide a copy if anyone wants to make a (very) selective merge to main. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings
- Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another non-encyclopedic quote farm threaded together by WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Please recognize this: the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings is without a doubt notable; dozens of leaders saying basically the same thing -- not so much if we choose to follow WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTINHERITED. If possible, keep your "but there is precedent" comments to a minimum. Precedent to keep poorly-constructed quote farms is not one I, or anyone, should like to follow. Instead, give me policy, or give me death! TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 19:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note - The actual article rather nicely, and more importantly, academically summarizes the response to the attack in a well-constructed paragraph: "The attack also sparked condemnation and expressions of condolence from numerous governments and heads of state, as well as international bodies such as NATO, the Council of Europe, and the European Union who also condemned the attacks and/or expressed condolences to the victims' families". TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 19:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep TGS is not following proper channel. This should be discussed as a merger rather than as a AfD. I don't know why you are using your all energies to delete or minimize the terrorism related information. These are reactions to one of the notable terrorism act done in the recent history. The article only need a decent prose which we can add if we stop wasting our time on these kind of AfDs. Greenbörg (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Greenbörg if you are not going to bother to read my rationale, why do you feel obligated to cast a vote? As I already stated, the attack is without a doubt notable. That does not mean quotes saying the same thing are, and I applied the appropriate policies to make that point. "Decent prose" does not make this any more than an indiscriminate collection loosely conjoined together by WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 12:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Merge with article on 2010 Moscow Metro bombings - this article already has a sub-heading on reactions to the event. Vorbee ( talk) 18:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep TGS is not following proper channel.AfD is not to be used as a merg discussion. Those discussions are held at the talk page. I see no reason for deletion or merge anyway. Good sources. Article is informative BabbaQ ( talk) 20:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- BabbaQ I never proposed merging this article, once. You obviously did not read my rationale or the corresponding policies I selected to construct my statement. Perhaps you will benefit from reading WP:ATA. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete If someone wants to vote merge, you should say so, Afd's can legitimately result in a merge or redirect and often do so. The nom has made valid points about indiscriminate and WP:NOTINHERITED, I seriously doubt there is significant coverage of the coverage of a terror incident which does not focus on the terror incident, but infact focuses on the reaction. Nor do I see why the event should be split over several articles. This article is well constructed with the little flags, but ultimately seems pointless. Α Guy into Books™ § ( Message) - 07:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- an indiscriminate collection of information, not relevant to the readers. The article mostly consists of republished press releases such as "...strongly condemned the blasts and offered his condolences..." etc. etc. What were these entities supposed to do, endorse the terror attack? (In any case, if any org did happen to praise the bombing, this occurrence would be notable enough to include into the main article.) K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per K.e.coffman. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep While it represents a new type of article for Wikipedia and delves into the realm of Wikiquote, I think it still meets an encyclopedic need, and I would like to see the equivalent for other events. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) what is that encyclopedic need? Several quotes that say essentially the same thing? TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that this is a "new type of article for Wikipedia". See Category:Reactions to 2000s events and Category:Reactions to 2010s events. However, a number of those other reaction articles have been controversial at AfD due to the fact that they often go into long lists of countries with government officials from each country condemning the attack and offering condolences to the victims, which some editors including myself find unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing, both of which resulted in "no consensus" results. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per reasons given above. Shelbystripes ( talk) 05:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I took the effort to actually read the contents of this article (OK, I lie, I stopped halfway as life is too short) and haven't found a single statement that was not WP:ROUTINE WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:PRIMARY condemnation of the act, expression of solidarity with Russian people, or determination to continue anti-terrorist campaign. I don't think the readers will be too disappointed by eventual deletion of this article either... all 1219 of them in 2016 (hard to tell how many of them made it to the end of the article). No such user ( talk) 12:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- strong keep it is notable to the IR students as the other such articles. This is after all an encyclopaedia for students everywhere, not just editors. we update this for the world at large, not just us. It si important to nore who sad what NOT who said!
Lihaas (
talk) 02:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
-
Lihaas...what? Care to rephrase or apply a policy so I can understand your argument for keeping this quote farm?
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 05:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Words of NOTABLE people indicate to IR (international relations) students indicative of what policy is in their Masters programs (I was in the conflict studies programme at
UCD and did a course, with getting an A+, under
Gerard Casey (philosopher) (who has a WP page)), but I am aware of what poli sci colleagus did). it is important of who said what and not what was said. they use it for their masters theses.
First day lecture started with writing on the board "states are criminal organisations" [1] (fun weekly responses to the readings...and his responses) (we were 2/4 of anarcho-capitalists on campus)...that said Ive also worked with Walid Phares who is a neocon at FDD (See WP history in June 2007 at the page...propaganda it was (but I had moved to biz development except Monday cataloguing weekly media appearances)). Lihaas ( talk) 06:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)- I am sure glad I am not on your course... I cannot quite understand why these masters degree political science students (I study law btw) would be using Wikipedia as a source, nor why this article is of any use to normal people, who are not writing a thesis. Unless I am mistaken, there are journals and newspapers which follow the political position of particular parties and personages, perhaps you could use those. Regarding your assertion of "This is after all an encyclopedia for students everywhere" I think you are getting us confused with Wikiversity. Α Guy into Books™ § ( Message) - 11:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Words of NOTABLE people indicate to IR (international relations) students indicative of what policy is in their Masters programs (I was in the conflict studies programme at
UCD and did a course, with getting an A+, under
Gerard Casey (philosopher) (who has a WP page)), but I am aware of what poli sci colleagus did). it is important of who said what and not what was said. they use it for their masters theses.
-
Lihaas...what? Care to rephrase or apply a policy so I can understand your argument for keeping this quote farm?
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 05:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect - These articles are becoming popular solutions to the issue of long quote-farm reactions usually presented in the respective main articles. Instead, however, these articles just present that issue within themselves. As it is, these articles are not encyclopedic in themselves per the arguments of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and quotes should not dominate an article. I am baffled by a couple !votes up above as AfD is a perfectly legitimate forum for this discussion. If you think merge or redirect is a superior solution to deletion, then you should say so in your !vote. I'm okay with a merge happening if anything of use can be transferred, more importantly though, I think this page should be left as a redirect as has been done with articles such as Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack and Reaction to the 2017 Finsbury Park attack. There is a lot of material hidden inside the revisions to the page, some of it may become of use later on, if not now. Besides, redirects are cheap. Mr rnddude ( talk) 11:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete As the alternative would be death to the Slick, which no one wants. Quote lists like these belong in Almanacs, not in Encyclopedias. Selective merges and redirects per ATD are quite allright with me. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. This is adequately covered in the main article: "The attack also sparked condemnation and expressions of condolence from numerous governments and heads of state, as well as international bodies such as NATO, the Council of Europe, and the European Union who also condemned the attacks and/or expressed condolences to the victims' families." We are not a quotation aggregator or a newspaper. Sandstein 10:33, 28 September 2017 (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.