Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School 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   weak keep. The main article is already > 100k, so policy suggests that merger is right out. With an exceptionally compelling case and strong support perhaps that could be overlooked, but neither exists here. That this list is "indiscriminate" or "loosely associated" is asserted several times, but never explained or argued, so it can't be given much weight. Which leaves "Meets WP:N" as the main policy driven argument (some of both ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT, but there's no policy weight there). Headcount sort of favours keep (merge is really a keep vote, but merge to an article that's already 100k is not a viable vote - it's unclear to me whether it's a poorly informed merge vote (that should then be discounted) or a poorly phrased redirect vote)) That said, policy favours keep, headcount marginally favours keep. Wily D  11:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

International reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ugh, another one of these "international reactions" articles? These violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:N. NOTDIR#1 says "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations", and that's what this is. While this is all on one subject, it's still quotations from various heads of state, saying more or less the same exact thing. It also violates N because the international reactions as a subject are not notable; the shooting they're referring to is what's notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikinews Appropriate there, we can link from the article on the shooting to there, we dont lose contributions in the transwiki, and keeps WP's purpose to NOTNEWS. --M ASEM  (t) 21:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can think of several ways to improve the article and reduce the focus of news. However, with deletion threatened that is like telling someone to do work with a gun pointed at their head.  There have been quite a few commentaries in the foreign press, much more than just some condolences by heads of government. Auchansa (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better solution would just be Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which would include foreign analysis and commentaries, as well as a broader description of the American press's reactions. As I wrote below, I just hate the inclusion of these generic, useless government condolences. Actual discourse is notable, but such repetitive statements devoid of impact is not. Reywas92 Talk 05:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Transwiki or merge: Unnecessary content fork that seems to be nothing but statements or tweets of world leaders  p  b  p  22:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, and rename, as this can be expanded to include the reactions such as the decision by the parent company to sell the company that made the rifles. However, the current title is not conducive to adding that information, so a rename is required. Otherwise, if neither of those things are to be done, then delete. gwickwire  talk edits 22:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It is quite encyclopedic to see what leaders of various nations around the world said about a historic event. In previous AFDs for international reaction articles, consensus was no rule was violated.  The articles in category:International reactions are all valid content forks, this something important to the main event, that wouldn't all fit in the main article.   D r e a m Focus  22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This shows the significance of the massacre at Sandy Hook. Those that oppose this have also opposed this being on the main article. All of these reactions should not be ignored completely. The world is watching.--Joey (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that it was a massacre shows the significance of the massacre. What do repetitive comments tell us? – Muboshgu (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep "Ugh, another one of these "international reactions" articles?" Yes, another one, why not? This is hardly "loosely associated topics", as the nominator fully acknowledges. It's notable, it's sourced, it's a valid spinout. I'm sorry the nominator does not like it, but that's not a reason to delete stuff.  -- Cycl o pia  talk  23:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically it fails the GNG - there is no demonstrated notability of "international reactions to the Sandy Hook shooting" - but as a spinout of the main shooting article, it doesn't make sense to delete on that grounds. (In contract, "Reactions to Occupy Wall Street" is notable.) But it is one of those things that doesn't make sense in an encyclopedia that is not meant to be a newspaper. We have a sister project better suited for that.  (and this also begs the question of moving those other pages in that category to Wikinews as well) --M ASEM  (t) 23:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, technically it passes GNG. There are articles such as "Sandy Hook Shooting: World Reactions To Connecticut Tragedy" (Huffington Post), "World Leaders React To The Sandy Hook Massacre" (Business Insider), and "The world reacts to Sandy Hook school shooting with outpouring of ..." (Global Post), as well as at least a few others.  This is not just a subject that some Wikipedian decided to create. Auchansa (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Those articles reiterate the quotes, and provide no additional comment or analysis, and thus are primary sources. --M ASEM (t) 05:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. That's a bad misunderstanding of primary vs secondary sources. The primary source is the quote itself, as it being on an official statement, or Twitter account, or whatever. If a news source repeats the quote, it is being reported by a secondary source, that uses the primary as a source. Also, the point is that secondary sources made article about the subject of international reactions. That's what we need for WP:GNG. -- Cycl o pia talk  09:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's absolutely wrong, and has been discussed at length on pages like RS and NOR. A secondary source is expected to make some type of novel transformation of the information - analysis, critique, comparison, etc. - from primary and other secondary sources.  (Being reported in a different work makes something third-party, but that's not the same as secondary) Most newspaper articles that aren't op-eds are primary sources in re-reporting what others have said, and that's what these are.  It doesn't make them improper sources, but they don't help to satisfy the GNG. --M ASEM  (t) 14:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as very bizarre and beyond the concept of secondary sourcing. Can you point me to the discussions you are talking about? -- Cycl o pia talk  14:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We have this in policy at WP:NOR (which follows Secondary source), and explained out at WP:PRIMARYNEWS. I can't easily point to any specific discussion but most of that will be at WT:NOR (there's searchable archives there). Key to remember, it is not that newspapers are immediately always primary sources, it depends on context. But rote repeating of other statements without additional analysis will make that a primary source. --M ASEM (t) 14:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's good to learn. I had a look and I see no explicit reference in policy to the fact that a reported declaration is primary, but I'll look harder. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYNEWS's example of "interviews" mentions reporters restating a political's speech as being primary, and relinks back to NOR (policy). I will note that the footnotes in NOR point to several university libraries' pages on the distiction, and there are different schools of thoughts where the line of secondary and primary can be drawn and often depending on field, but importantly for WP, we generally have drawn the line as stated at NOR: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Simply requoting a speech clearly fails that. --M ASEM  (t) 15:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may butt in here a bit. This is something that took me a while to understand so it is understandable that there might be some misunderstanding. To use an unrelated example, say I am a famous politician and stand in front of my palace declaring that blue is the greatest colour in the world. A reporter might hear, and since I am famous, will report that Aircorn thinks "blue is the greatest colour in the world". That is Primary news. I am obviously the primary source, but they are just repeating what I said. However if the reporter didn't just repeat it, but said something along the lines of "Aircorn recently said that blue was the greatest colour, but that contradicts his recent thoughts on green being superiour, let alone his inclination for red". In this case they are not just repeating what I said, but analysing it. Then it is no longer primary news. Anyway, that is my understanding of how it works in the case of reporting quotes. AIR corn (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What I don't understand is, mostly, how adding a comment/analysis changes anything when dealing with notability. If a news media decides to repeat a comment verbatim, it still means it considered it worth of reporting, and that's what we ask for notability, the existence of multiple sources who judge the subject worth considering. I am still perplexed by the fact that a quote repeated by a news media is primary and not secondary, when the news media itself is in general a secondary source, but at least I sort of get the desired logic there. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why things like NOT#NEWS or NOT#PLOT (for fiction) comes into play. The analysis etc. provided by secondary coverage gives the necessary context to make primary elements relevant and appropriate to include in an encyclopedia - otherwise, we're just being a glorified newspaper or database. Take this article for instance. Yes, world leaders have given sympathy and condolences for the event, that's an appropriate fact to include but that takes all of one sentence to say. None of these responses have any other impact on the shooting or understanding its impact (the statement that many world leaders responded is enough to show impact), and are basically quotes to show quotes. They're invaluable as news items but trivial as encyclopedic topics, unless, as Aircorn suggests, some journalist compares and contrasts statements and finds, say, a significant deviation from a previous position (best I know, that hasn't happened here). --M ASEM (t) 16:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "The analysis etc. provided by secondary coverage gives the necessary context to make primary elements relevant and appropriate to include in an encyclopedia" - Honestly I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. The point of secondary sources for notability is that we follow their judgement in deciding what is worth talking about and what not. If, how and why they decide to do so is not our business -at least, not when we debate notability. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ample reference showing that it passes the GNG just fine. Multiple news sources would've covered everything a foreign leader said about this, all the newspapers in their own country at the least.   D r e a m Focus  23:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * News sources repeating quotes are not secondary sources, hence why this is more a news article appropriate for Wikinews than WP. (we need to keep it somewhere since none of this information should be lost.) --M ASEM (t) 23:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone actually use Wikinews? There is a historic event, with the leaders of the world commenting on it.  And it is secondary sources when they quote and comment on what one of the leaders said.   D r e a m Focus  00:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that we don't off-put more content to Wikinews is probably why less people actually read it, but that's what its there for. And no, I'm not seeing these sources "comment" on the statements made. Including them in an article, sure, that's fine primary reporting, but the newspapers need to further comment and critique such statements and that doesn't appear to be happening, ergo the sources used to report these quotes are not secondary. --M ASEM  (t) 00:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like it, but for policy reasons you didn't cover. I'm not questioning it's sourcing, but I'm saying that loosely related comments like these aren't notable. As Masem said, simply copying verbatim quotes doesn't constitute "coverage". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete: Firstly, all of the international responses say pretty much the same thing so the notability is kinda questionable. The main article didn't include a list for that reason.  However, if the consensus changes, then this can be merged into the main article.  This isn't like an article with a much bigger international reaction, such as the Syrian Civil War which has enough notable international reaction to warrant it's own article. 90.223.147.187 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * — 90.223.147.187 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Mifter (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Right on. Bad faith tagging of a comment simply because you don't agree with it makes the strongest possible case you could be making. Excellent argument, Mifter! --87.78.0.235 (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To add to that, I can see much more of an argument for notability for an incident with the international relevance of the Syrian Civil War than for an American shooting which appears to have no bearing on any other nation. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This is not notable information, it is the predictable and meaningless repetition of condolences, condemnation, and empathy. Unless something were to result from from these typical form statements, the fact that several nations all are saddened by this is not encyclopedic, notable, or worthy of an article. Reywas92 Talk 00:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Deletion is the WORST possible thing. I can read what the people who don't want the article are trying to say.  However, even redirect is better than delete since the information is there for people to read and use, if some of the information turns out to be useful later.  Deletion just destroys potentially good material. Auchansa (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is not an encylopaedic topic, it is a collection of repetitious condolences as noted above. Till  01:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." - WP:NOTMEMORIAL
 * The subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. The policy is only for others who "do not" meet such requirements. Mkdw talk 03:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. The shooting is notable. The international reactions are a page full of cruft that defines what Wikipedia is WP:NOT in several ways. – Muboshgu (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Cruft" is a POV term. What is cruft for you is critical information for someone else. We strive to decide what to include in an objective manner. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I shouldn't have called it cruft. It's still not notable information, and I haven't seen anyone demonstrate how this information is notable, let alone critical. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

— 198.228.228.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable for the international reaction to a non major world event. You dont get the world's attention for just any shooting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So it's quite clear the shooting is notable, still not clear that the repetitive statements themselves are notable. Same for the comment below: the event's notability does not confer notability upon this, with people saying the exact same thing as for every calamity.
 * Every calamity that happens does not get the attention of the world, if it did I would agree with you. Where do you define the word calamity and how big or small are we talking about? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has its own claims for notability, as well as positively contributing to the completeness of encyclopedic coverage on this event. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The discussion for this content's inclusion was made at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_4. Mkdw talk 03:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Creating a consensus can be tricky on a talk page that's filling up as quickly as that one. I didn't see that discussion, so this is the place to determine consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable stand-alone topic. Needs to be improved, though, of course. Statυs  ( talk ) 03:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest? The reactions to the reactions, the ramifications and impact of these typical, generic statements? Unfortunately those don't really exist. Reywas92 Talk 05:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep partly based on news articles not about the killings but about the international reaction. Then allow the article to improve by not just limiting the article to quotes from heads of government but adding other non-government international reaction.  Auchansa (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS says that just because something is newsworthy doesn't mean it deserves a wiki article. What lasting effect will come from the reactions? From the massacre, hopefully a few policy ones, but these banal generic statements will be forgotten in a week. – Muboshgu (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article was agreed upon in a consensus that I was too late to participate in. The article highlights the significance of the shooting. Comparable to many other articles with their own article of reactions, Operation Pillar of Cloud for example. I agree with all statements in support.--198.228.228.153 (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF can exist that sometimes shouldn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support The following is exactly what I said in the discussion leading to the creation of this article, and it is still relevant today. >> I agree with all of the statements in Support. It DOES shows the importance of what happened and it doesn't memorialize it. Does the 9/11 reactions page memorialize 9/11? Why don't you say every reaction page/section memorializes? One sentence is not enough to sum up the significance of this shooting. I agree, the world is watching. Is this enough to sum up a reaction? "Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Tucson and a lot of people were sad." How about "People in India was upset over the Sikh temple shooting"? Obviously not.--199.231.184.178 (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "No, that's exactly the summation of this page. As for the 9/11 page, it's not at issue here. "The world is watching" means what? We need to memorialize everyone's canned press released statement is what I'm hearing from your argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not a WP:content fork as this content was not at the main article when this one was created. Contrary to what is said above, the discussion on the talk page did not reach a consensus to create a new article. So this needs to stand on its own legs and satisfy the WP:GNG. To do that it needs "significant coverage in reliable sources". So far what we have is news articles from various countries outside the US that have included the leaders reaction as a matter of course. Almost all the articles themselves are on the shooting, not the reaction. We have in effect synthesised them together to create this article. Maybe one day there will be scholarly studies that look at the reaction of the international community in relation to this event, but until then I don't think this meets our notability criteria. AIR corn (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It also violates a few nots in the process, such as the not news and not directory, plus in its current state is a quotefarm, with pretty much the same quotes. AIR corn (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It was on the main article first, but many felt it too large, with some just not liking that sort of thing at all. So putting it in its own article made sense.  This is what is done with a lot of articles in this situation.  I look through the history of the article but so many edits are made each day, I don't see where it was originally at. Here  had part of that list, domestic reactions and then international reactions complete with bullet list, quotes, and flags.  It grew to be its current size as what is here now.   D r e a m Focus  17:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikinews - I have no idea why the other discussion was moved prematurely to the talk page, but I think that a move to a more appropriate project would be better for these reactions. Super Goku V (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are some examples of more worldwide reaction: - Flowers and toys laid down at the American Embassy in Moscow Russia.  - Crosses on a beach in RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil.  - Pakistani Children Pay Tribute To Sandy Hook Shooting Victims. These responses are more than just from world leaders and are covered in reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And per WP:NOTNEWS, just because that is covered in reliable sources doesn't make it notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to WikiNews. It would seemingly fit there, and this does not appear to be notable enough for a stand-alone article; at the very least, merge some of it into the main article. I also concur with . TBr  and  ley  21:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment--Wikinews will not accept this as a transwiki at this point, as their policies specifically prohibit articles being added to their archives retroactively; the only articles there are ones that were written at the time of the event. It's not a dumping ground for rejected news articles on WP. C628 (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless. There is nothing notable about any of the responses.  Now if some country banned guns or did something measurable in response to this event, well then you have an actual response.  All this is to this point is the heads of various states giving their condolences to this tragedy, as if anyone from any country would not do such a thing as a default.  If someone really thinks that it needs to be noted that a completely predicitable response to this tragedy was done, then make a mention in the primary article that heads of states from many countries gave their condolences and so forth regarding this.  Arzel (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not encyclopaedic. Nothing notable about the reactions. I may come across as heartless, if there is a consensus that the article be kept for a while for the bereaved, then count my vote as keep, cold logic puts me in the delete camp. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep and Rename to "Response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" per Marc Kupper (see below). I had changed to delete, given the predictable character of the reactions. But now I believe that this is the best solution. It was subsequently proposed by Marc Kupper and I agree with it. As I said previously, I don't care one way or the other about whether there is an international reactions article. What is sorely lacking is an article on the domestic reaction. That's the discussion we should be having. For seven nights running CNN has lead off with U.S. reaction to the shooting, and we not only don't have an article but we don't even have much in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting story. I haven't been involved actively in Wikipedia for long and I have to say that this has confused and troubled me a great deal. Coretheapple (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Compromise idea There is a great compromise idea and that is to start writing to add domestic reaction then to propose changing the article name to "Reactions to the Sandy Hook...." I would support such a compromise between the keepers and the deleters. Auchansa (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is an excellent idea. Coretheapple (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How are domestic "reactions" any more notable than international ones? The only reactions that really matter are the ones that can lead to changes in policy. Is that what you mean, or do you mean canned statements about the horror and tragedy and etc.? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The problem here is it is just quotes or periods of observation, which I am sure all those affect appreciate, but that can literally be summed up in one sentence for encyclopedic coverage. Again, I point out Reactions to Occupy Wall Street, which discussions actions that actually occurred domestically and around the world in response; this appears to be a good encyclopedic article. And even there, its not filled with a list of quotes. --M ASEM (t) 18:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be fixed to remove the avalanche of quotes and describe the substantive way this has affected the nation. Coretheapple (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Whole world is sad or whatever. But their grief isn't encyclopedic. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 03:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename to "Response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting." The condolences from world leaders is a small part of the response. President Obama's Sunday evening speech was both well covered and itself received responses from both sides of the political isle. Where I live (San Francisco bay area) the response has included immediate increased security at schools, a threat phoned to a local school claiming they would be the next Sandy Hook, etc. I suspect schools in the immediate Newtown area went into lockdown. The gun control/rights debate has been a major topic of the news coverage, and may result in legislation, both in the USA and internationally. The immediate putting up for sale the manufacture of the main gun used in the shooting is another response. Mental heath, with regard to the shooter, support opportunities for someone like his mother, and for the victims and responders has also received much coverage. I have also seen secondary coverage of the media coverage. At least one person has been arrested that seemed intent on a copycat crime. I looked over some of the articles in Category:International reactions and it appears we have a good chance at making a quality "Response" article. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 09:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A legitimate content fork of the reactions article would be fine and quite possibly necessary if this leads to major permanent changes to gun laws and school security in the US. However this is a very different beast to what we have here and what the intentions of the creators were. Also it should really naturally emerge from the parent articles section. Such an article will allow some expansion of the international reaction, but due weight would demand that the main focus would be remain on the domestic one (as I think you are suggesting). Apart from expressions of greif, there are probably not too many other reactions from the international community and any that are would be better expressed in prose. AIR corn (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Mark Kupper. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Adds nothing. World leaders just say the same things over and over again. This does not help our readers understand the shooting or the after effects any better. Deserves a sentence or small paragraph in the main article. I don't think the article should be renamed to include all reactions just yet. It's only been a week. We don't have a crystal ball to see if the after effects will be big enough to warrant an article. Just wait. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge This just deserves a paragraph in the article.-- Astros4477 ( talk ) 04:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete and merge - as I said on the TAlk page of the main article, this should be summarized. This is not the funeral home website, where everyone's thoughts are kept. If world leaders said something other than condolences, it might be worth keeping, but they don't. This is absurd to include each quote in the main or this article.Parkwells (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable enough for a standalone article -RoseL2P (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge: Not long or notable enough for a separate article, but would fit well in the main article. EvilHom3r (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  14:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * *Merge: It deserves to be a section of the main article. Take a look at Category:International reactions and the articles that survived are diplomatic or have to do with foreign relations among countries, as those reactions can have impact on the outcome. While the information in the article itself is important enough for inclusion in the main article, it doesn't meet the test of independent notability. Crtew (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone has, on several occasions, removed this article, when incorporated into the main article. A reactions article seems to be reasonable since there were international reactions, news articles solely about the international reaction (and not about the shooting), a very different domestic response, even the NRA making a statement, which is very unusual.  There is great hesitation to improve this article with AFD being like a gun to the head.  If the article has no AFD, I would certainly improve the article.  I've already given some ideas in the preceding sentences. Auchansa (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rename An overall "response to Sandy Hook" would be more appropriate for domestic and world reactions.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked above, but I don't see anyone answering my question of why "domestic" responses of grief are any more notable than international ones. As is pointed out above, the "Reactions to Occupy" article actually shows the impact of the Occupy movement, and is worth keeping. This is just an unencyclopedic repository of canned statements run through PR departments. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Added more to the worldwide reception, and improved the lead. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unnecessary FORK from the original article. There's been discussion about a reactions section, but afaik that hasn't even gotten enough traction yet. There's certainly not enough for an "international" section which is simply a collection of statements following a tragedy, which happens with surprising frequency. It's just this appears to be on everyone's mind atm. Shadowjams (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, possibly rework. The full impact of the event on public sentiment towards gun laws seems to be significant. It's fine for now but might be treated better in some other fashion to show the impact of the event. Insomesia (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I added China's reaction there was criticism of the government due to the media reporting on the shooting in the United States while ignoring an attack which happened in China the same day. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 *  Strong Delete - For every tragedy, there are always going to be international reactions supporting the victims and condeming the violence. It is common sense. For example, for Virginia Tech School Massacre, I know there was similar response from international community.Tarikur (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How is this an argument to delete? If anything, you are giving a good case for building an analogous article on Virginia Tech. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this delete vote rationale is WP:Run-of-the-mill, which I can agree with. These are run of the mill comments. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Mark Kupper.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C) 21:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep-- Metalhead94 TC 23:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Per previous AFDs about trascending events like this one. I am sure that there are some users believing that this is a clear cut case of WP:NOTNEWS, but this goes far beyond that trend. This event is notable enough by many reasons that were, are and will be discussed by media throughout time. This won't stop in a week or so, which is what NOTNEWS states. This, just like Death of Tia Sharp, are pretty notable topics derived from a single event. — ΛΧΣ  21  06:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly the event is notable (the shooting itself). Here is the question of the notability of the topic "International reactions to the shooting". Newspaper articles repeating quotes are not showing how this topic has enduring notability. --M ASEM (t) 06:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with you Masem. I didn't take too much care to evaluate that question, and thanks for the comment. Sadly, newspapers seem to just have been copy-pasting the information rather than adding any new sign of enduring notability. I expect to see such information available in the future (like that shooting that happened on a college, which name I can't remember), otherwise I would have to vote delete in this article's next AFD. —  ΛΧΣ  21  06:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As it happens, ΛΧΣ 21, the name you can't remember is probably Virginia Tech. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Valuable material that will be helpful for those interested in IR and related disciplines. Excellent decision by the article creator to spin this out, as there's too much useful information to easily fit into the main article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - mostly per FeydHuxtable, Marc Kupper, and Mkdw...I disagree with this being characterized as a violation of WP:NOTNEWS; what comes from this disaster will certainly have lasting notability (especially through gun laws, etc.). That said, Response to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is a much better title than what we currently have. Go   Phightins  !  17:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's not an article. Rather, the page is a list of reactions from those who can speak on behalf of a particular country. The page should be judged as a list. The problem come from WP:CSC: Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group should only be created if a complete list is interesting to readers, e.g., interesting to readers now and years from now. However, the list is a list of loosely associated quotations or paraphrased statements, failing WP:NOTDIR. The loose association as a topic also predicts that the topic will not be interesting to readers years from now, largely due to WP:NOTNEWS and the audience draw of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting topic. WP:LISTPURP further explains WP:CSC: a list may be a valuable information source. This AfD nominated list should support the parent article, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, but that article only has a relatively small "Reaction" subsection, which explains, "Leaders from many countries and organizations throughout the world also offered their condolences through the weekend after the shooting." Such government reactions are routine under similar situations and there is nothing in this list of international reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or the parent article that shows the list is sufficiently valuable to understanding the reaction subsection in the parent article to justify having a stand-alone list. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the delete !voters are arguing that an article like this is a fork, why would there be so many entries in Category:International reactions?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 09:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Some of those have the same problem, some don't (eg Reactions to Occupy Wall Street). --M ASEM  (t) 13:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, Masem. The purpose of the Occupy movement was/is to generate reaction in anyone and eveyone, local and international, in hopes of causing political action to further their cause. The occupations of buildings, parks, etc. were secondary to the primary desire for reaction. That supports a Reactions to the Occupy movement fork. In the death of Osama bin Laden, the US government took actions (burial at sea, etc.) to lessen reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden, making the actual reaction despite the U.S.'s efforts an important subtopic. The primary purpose of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was not international reaction, it was the action of the shooting itself. The primary motive has yet to be fleshed out, but it was not for international reaction or even reaction beyond the local area. -- Jreferee (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually most mass shootings of this type are believed to be motivated in part by a desire to get a reaction. Of course since Adam Lanza is dead now we won't be able to know for sure what motivated him, but psychologists have often argued that the extremely large amount of mass media coverage that follows shootings like Columbine and Sandy Hook may partially inspire some copycat attacks by mentally disturbed individuals who believe that they never amounted to anything in life, so they would rather "go out with a bang" in order to become (in)famous in death. The desire for posthumous publicity (or publicity while still living, in the case of men like Anders Breivik and James Eagan Holmes, who didn't take their own lives) is often a prime motive in these kinds of massacres. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there's "reactions" and there's "reactions". The Occupy reactions or those in response to bin Laden's death are about actions with traceable effects (enduring) due to those events. On the other hand, reactions like to the shooting are just statements with no explicit intent of action, and simply a show of sympathy and compassion.  These latter types are nice quote-filled texts but unless something actually comes of that, its not encyclopedic beyond the brief mention in the event article.  Enduring reactions to an event are instead appropriate.  Now, there's likely no question that gun control will be a big issue, so there's that as a reaction, but so far, all that can be reasonably said is on the event page.  If there are any other enduring actionable responses, its not apparent. Hence the difference between these types of articles. --M ASEM  (t) 23:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Abosulety keep this is a very important event  Jay Jay Talk to me 20:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is not about an event - it is about reactions to the event (The event is notable in a separate article.) --M ASEM (t) 23:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge &mdash; the nominator basically said it all. All it says is "this country's sad, that country's sad, we're all sad".  This can be said in all of one paragraph, as everything here is just repetitive condolences.  Summarize the condolences into one line on the Reactions section of the main page (...oh wait, they kind of did that already), but if anything significantly more than that pops up, then give it some notice.  As far as this is going right now, it's a repository of news.  But, hell, even if this isn't condensed into one paragraph, it could still fit on the Sandy Hook shooting page without it becoming excessively lengthy.  &mdash;Onore Baka Sama(speak 19:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the countries' responses are more diverse than that. Iran, for instance, promoted a conspiracy theory blaming the Israelis for the shooting, and also made a polemical point equating the victims of the shooting with Gazans and Syrians. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This information would otherwise be in the main shooting article itself and, thus, it's completely valid to have a spinout article. That's kind of what you're supposed to do. And reactions are rather important actually, because they inform the reader about the opinions of other countries. It is perhaps not as apparent in this sort of event, but for more contentious ones, countries that praise and those that do not praise an event are important distinctions that the news recognizes as important and we are meant to be a proper reflection of such things. International opinions have always been an important topic. Silver  seren C 12:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the "meaning" of all the reactions is not explicitly commented by other sources, us putting them in there to let the reader figure it out is a big example of indiscriminate information; it doesn't beg OR but simply excessive info that not all readers will need. Again, the same purpose is served by moving this to Wikinews and linking to that Wikinews article from the shooting, so that those readers that are curious to the international response can still get them. --M ASEM  (t) 15:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing that "all readers need". If a reader doesn't need the article, they won't read it -just like for every article. Easy as that. There's nothing indiscriminate in this information, it's all properly sourced with a clear cut title. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That argument is bogus, as that would render the notability policy void - I can argue that for any topic there would be at least one person that would be interested and therefore must be kept. Our indiscriminate policy is to make sure that we are summarizing to a point that the topics we cover are of interest to a reasonably broad range of readers and offload the details that would be of interest to smaller groups to references or other locations (which is why we have several sister projects that make excellent candidates for that type of information).  In the case of the shooting, we collectively recognize the importance of the timeline of the event, who was killed, who the shooter was, and the enduring reaction that have/will occur from it, hence why all that's covered.  The international reaction, lacking any enduring effects, is not a topic that a broad numbers of readers would need to know about the event and thus better suited for a sister project where that metric isn't in place (read: wikinews). --M ASEM  (t) 16:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "That argument is bogus, as that would render the notability policy void" - Nope. You should know that, in logic, implication doesn't work two-ways: if A -> B, it doesn't follow that B -> A. Specifically, what I mean is that the bogus argument is "this doesn't interest all readers, thus it must be deleted", which is basically the WP:BORING argument. We have written nowhere that the topics we cover have to be "of interest to a reasonably broad range of readers", and in fact our policies allow us to cover a lot of frankly obscure subjects, provided they're covered by multiple reliable sources. That the reaction " is not a topic that a broad numbers of readers would need to know" is your own personal opinion, not backed by anything, but even if it was fact, it is completely irrelevant to our policies and guidelines. After all, if encyclopedias should only cover what every layman wants to know, they would perhaps have less than a dozen articles. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I explained the fundamental principle our notability guideline (the embodiment of NOT#IINFO) works on. By have significant coverage in independent secondary sources, we are able to judge how much a topic is of interest to a range of readers, using the metric that if a reliable independent source gives coverage in a secondary (analytical/critical/transformative) manner to a topic, then that source must think the topic important to its readers, and ergo WP can consider that. I'm not saying every reader has to have interest in a topic, just that we have to consider how broad a range of readers would likely be interested in.  That's why it is important to recognize that while many sources have provided snippets of these responses by the international community, the lack of any further discussion on them shows that they lack notability or enduring coverage, and thus not of broad interest.  They're factually true and I'm sure readers interested in world politics would be curious, but the broader range of readers landing on the shooting page are not likely going to be carrying what country X say in sympathy but more why the shooter did what he did or how he did it or what major influences the event had. --M ASEM  (t) 17:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but breadth of readership is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that there are sources; we don't care how many people will actually read these sources or the articles based on them. If what you proposed was true, then we would have to collect readership data about the sources we use for our articles, or decide topic inclusion on the basis of popularity. That's clearly not what we do, and for lots of good reasons. Also, when you say "the broader range of readers landing on the shooting page are not likely going to be carrying what country X say in sympathy but more why the shooter did what he did or how he did it or what major influences the event had" you again put a weirdly subjective and unsupported statement on what readers do, that as such as no relevance. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We do, indirectly, considere readership numbers in considering reliable sources; a small town local paper is not considered a reliable source for major world events. Of course, it's not hard numbers that are used but more what the intended audience is of the source relative to the field; major academic journals in some fields may only have readerships in the thousands but that would often represent a broad slice of the academic field's community they represent.  This is far different from popularity (which as you say is a not a consideration for notability).  But this is getting off point; we have to recongize that determining what is indiscriminate info is a subjective call and we do at times have to make assumptions about what the readership of an encyclopedia are interested in. There are lots of things that WP doesn't cover or had deleted despite having a large body of readers but we have decided that not all those readers are coming here to read those in the context of an encyclopedia and hence we have removed that information (eg. many many articles on fictional works reported in-universe, or the case of numerous MMA events). We have to look here at these reactions, and consider that because they are not influencing any of the events of the shooting case nor have had enduring coverage by reliable sources, that on average readers of an encyclopedia are not going to be interested in them (That is a subjective call, yes).  As a news item yes, and thus those extra details can be put elsewhere (Wikinews) and linked in to provide the details we as an encyclopedia cannot. --M ASEM  (t) 17:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * " we have to recongize that determining what is indiscriminate info is a subjective call " - No, we don't have to do that, because it isn't. We have the GNG and our other notability/appropriateness guidelines, exactly because we want to make objective calls as much as possible. Yes, some of these guidelines have subjectivity wiggle room, but that's a bug, not a feature. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The GNG and SNGs are only for notability of a topic on a stand-alone page. We have to use other metrics for content (eg most of WP:NOT), but these are all still subjecting (even the GNG is subjective as to what is "significant coverage"). As a standalone topic "(International) reactions to Sandy Hook" fails the GNG as there are no secondary sources about the topic's enduring coverage - it's just primary source quotes. If this content were merged to the Sandy Hook article, it would be indiscriminate info that is given undue coverage (the reason it was removed from there in the first place).  Wikinews is a perfect home for it where IINFO or WP:N doesn't apply. --M ASEM  (t) 18:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory where information is collected indiscriminately. Reactions can be covered adequately in the main article without resorting to the creation of a quotefarm. Hekerui (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all the International reactions are quotes though, or by just world leaders. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's the big chunk of the article. I don't believe the rest is so significant it has to be in the main article, though one could make the argument for merging that paragraph back. Hekerui (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly notable based on sources. Splitting out content is necessary. Everyking (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, the vast majority of these are just condolences, and while they're nice, they don't mean a lot. Any reactions beyond that can and should be incorporated into the main article.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Merge with Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.TheMillionRabbit (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I second TheMillionRabbit's Merge vote, and furthermore it should be a distinct Section within that Main Article (which it used to be, so it should be again). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment about MASEM's argument. I see that a little above he agrees it meets the WP notability standards, and argues there shouldn't be an article nonetheless, on the basis of his  judgment that it isn't important enough, and gives a variety of reasons for thinking that judgment correct. My own judgement is just the opposite, but both of our judgements are irrelevant. WP basically goes by the sources, and what the world thinks is notable is, unless there's some really specific reason. Here there is just the general prediction that nobody much will care about it after a while.  Examining WP:N, the reasons given for not making a separate article even when we have notability are primarily applicable when there is insufficient material to be worth covering separately, and a better article can be written as a merge. That is a matter of judgment at the borderline cases, but still is basically objective.   The lack of sufficient material is very obviously not the case here, so I just cannot figure out a logical reason for merging that isn't entirely subjective. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said this topic (being "Interntaional reaction to teh Sandy Hook Shootings") was notable; I've explicitly stated that it isn't. The shootings themselves are clearly notable, but the reactions to them fall well short of the GNG. --M ASEM  (t) 02:27, 31 December 2012 (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.