Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Presidential candidates reactions to the Charleston church shooting


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

2016 Presidential candidates reactions to the Charleston church shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As agreed in Talk:Charleston church shooting (participants notified), the quotes made by presidential candidates are not noteworthy or notable. Just because this page is a content fork does not make this respository of statements more relevant or notable. These candidates are not related in any way to the shooting or Charleston, rather these are statements expected of them and are nothing more than news. Discussion of statements, not the quotes themselves, is better suited for Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America or United States presidential election, 2016]. Reywas92 Talk 23:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge- This incident has ignited a national debate on race and civil war symbols, and the remarks and comments of 2016 presidential candidates are not only notable but have encyclopedic and historical value. All the content is meticulously sourced, and notability thus asserted. It should be obvious that this is not a POV fork, but rather a subarticle that can be summarized in the main article about the shooting. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  00:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also note that the article is still in stub mode, and I am improving the article as we speak. Some time needs to be given for articles to fully develop before submitting to an AFD. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources verifying that Person A said "This" and Person B said "That" do not provide notability or appropriateness as an article for the topic "People said things about something"; it provides further notability for the event itself. The comments already made on the talk page make clear that these statements do not provide useful context, nor do these people hold such a special place among all public figures who comment that there should be a WP:UNDUE article just for them. If what Donald Trump and Rick Santorum have to say has historic value, say why in the various main articles, not simply listed in this one. Reywas92 Talk 00:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not referring to such sources. I am referring to the many sources that are commenting on these remarks, this being an issue that has raised to a national debate level. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is getting snowy, so I join the chorus. I will edit the respective candidates articles to add these comments, and continue developing a longer section on this aspect in the main article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * can you review and reply to my suggestion below? That seems a better solution than putting this into the individual biographies. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * that may be a good option. Thanks. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Gaijin42 and Ginsengbomb. Redirect and merge info to Charleston church shooting (prefer "comments" as opposed to "reaction"}. If it would be too much info for the article, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping the info here, and making this the main article. I'd rather see the info there first though. Though the event sparked the conversation, "Candidates remarks on the Confederate flag" is really another topic altogether. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * delete/redirect WP:RECENTISM WP:10YT. Nobody is going to care what the various candidates said a year from now, let alone 10 years. To the degree that such opinions are notable and encyclopedic, the should be summarized in the main article. If its too much to fit there, its probably being covered in an WP:UNDUE manner. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * delete per above: In five years time, nobody will take notice of the statements made by uninvolved candidates on this tragedy. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Five years ago, I would not have cared all that much about Mitt Romney's views opposing the display of the Confederate Flag, but the pertinence of his statements from 2008 and 2012 were manifest during this past week. Similarly, if a bunch of 2016 candidates were all wishy-washy on this issue (which has become intertwined with the shooting incident) and then a few years later want to present themselves as having demonstrated "leadership" then I would like to have some references at hand regarding their initial comments in an article like this one. KConWiki (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete not a possible redirect, there is already a nicely summarized paragraph over at Charleston church shooting regarding the candidates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The extent of this article is WP:UNDUE. The "candidates" are not particularly qualified to comment, their statements are no more than personal opinions. The current mention at Charleston church shooting is sufficient. WWGB (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete this makes little sense as a redirect, and less as an article. WP:UNDUE. WP:10YT. Imagine the amount of articles every Presidential election season would produce if this were an article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  00:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: There's really no need to quote every single person who responded to the shooting. I think a generalized sentence describing all eighteen-plus candidates' reactions is sufficient enough. DisuseKid (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge with content from Charleston church shooting into a new article, Reactions to the Charleston church shooting, in which this article would form a section. The reactions section in the main article is already quite long, and a separate "reactions" article seems reasonable and with enough scope to be a good length consistent with WP:SUMMARY. VQuakr (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The reactions section is currently at a mere 15,275 bytes which under WP:SIZERULE lists it as "Length alone does not justify division". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SIZERULE refers to article length, not section length. That section has also been kept edited down to avoid overcoverage within the ~80kB parent article; there is plenty of verifiable content to expand it if there was consensus to do so. VQuakr (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge per VQuakr. KConWiki (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The section includes four paragraphs on the "Confederate flag" issue, which is more noteworthy and encyclopedic than the list in the bottom of this article. The discussion of "the Christian Science Monitor, the shooting has become a precarious subjects for Republican presidential contenders, in particular in regard of the racial motivations" in the main article is already sufficient, and conveys the point without laboring the point with 16 quotes. -- Aronzak (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Even accepting the premise that "election season" is a real two-year thing, this part of that season is tiny. An article about the candidates reactions to all disasters could make sense, or one on all people's reactions to Charleston. But this is way too specific, and isn't likely to grow. The news moves is cycles, and this one is almost through. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:PERSISTENCE. While Charleston church shooting is likely to persist, the reactions of presidential candidates will not, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Including some of this information on an individual candidate's page, where it becomes a significant statement from the candidate, may be appropriate. ~ RobTalk 05:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, etc. A condensed version would be useful on the main Charleston church shooting article though.LM2000 (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There already is over at Charleston church shooting, I don't see what more there is to merge without giving undue weight to a candidate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: See Category talk:Charleston church shooting for discussion about the deletion of Category:Charleston church shooting. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Recentism and NOTNEWS. Way too many candidates and fluctuating opinions. It is better to do a brief summary in reactions with no redirect.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Deserves mention at Charleston church shooting but not its own article. Number   5  7  20:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per POV FORK, COATRACK. This will end up being all about what Rick Perry and Hillary Clinton did or did not say. Presidential primary candidates' commentary is not relevant to this or any other tragedy or major event. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete per clearly emerging consensus, as well as nom., WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, COATRACK & POV FORK.--JayJasper (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Delete for the reasons given by many others above, eg: NOTNEWS, RECENTISM and suitable coverage already exists elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per historical and encyclopedic value. Should we really presume no future reader could possibly care about these reactions in two or five years? Who is to say, and why would that be a reason to delete? I'm an inclusionist and don't really see what Wikipedia policies this article violates. It is accurately written and sourced. &mdash;Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge Not that notable, public figures will always give their opinion. Given the 2016 United States Presidential election, one can expect that most of the candidates to comment on almost any noteworthy event. Most of them said the same thing anyway, and its already addressed in the main article. Either the quotes and sources should be moved to the main article or this whole article should be deleted all together. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 16:09, 27 June 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.