Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo 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 keep. The arguments here were between the policy on not being an indiscriminate collection of information and our guidelines for spinning off separate articles and continuing coverage for notability. While the arguments for deletion were policy based, a consensus did not emerge in this conversation that the list was an indiscriminate collection of information, and a consensus did emerge that it is currently viewed as a valid spinoff article that has received continued coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another list of condolences and condemnation. As with other quote farms that have been nominated and deleted, I argue that is not an indiscriminate directory of information and synthing several quotes is in no way encyclopedic. Considering the parent article sufficiently summarizes what this lists says over and over, the purpose for this page has run out awhile ago. Certainly, it has already served its purpose of keeping unimportant reactions off the main page while the event was regularly in the news. And with certainty, I can say the incident is without a doubt notable but remember we are not discussing the shooting itself; anything associated with it is not inherently notable. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. A scrupulously referenced (117 inline cites), well-researched and detailed accounting of international reactions which is not easily obtainable anywhere else and aids those studying differences in how world entities view specific phenomena of this nature. If there is contention that such lists of reactions should not exist, then this should have been a mass nomination of all entries at Category:International reactions or, to go even further, Category:Reactions. If, on the other hand, the contention is that the other events are more notable than this event or that the structures of the other "Reaction" articles are more adroitly formed than the structure of this article, then we should be made aware of any deficiencies, so that needed improvements may be made. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article doesn't clearly aid those studying "differences" in how countries react to such incidents. I admit that I haven't read the reactions of all 84 countries and territories listed here, but all the ones I read either condemned the attack, expressed condolences for the victims, or both. (Even Iran, whose condemnation appears to have been less than whole-hearted.) Regarding the idea that lists of reactions like this should not exist, I have tended to support deletion of such articles, although such articles do have their supporters and some of them have been kept at AfD. See Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings (deleted, 28 September 2017) and Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack (no consensus, 26 August 2017) for two recent examples. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – indiscriminate collection of information and does not meet WP:LISTN. Consists of WP:PRIMARY materials – the reactions themselves, which are routine and do not stand out in any way. No encyclopedic relevance. Similar articles have been deleted in the recent past, such as:
 * Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Reactions to the Las Vegas concert shooting
 * Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks (3rd nomination) and more.
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact other articles have separately been found to not warrant inclusion is not grounds for why this article does not warrant inclusion. AusLondonder (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Indiscriminate quote farm of boiler plate condemnations. Charlie Hebdo shooting covers this amply. As may be seen in the article history, the reaction article is mainly a collection of news clippings from around the shooting - and then minor gnoming.Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - well referenced/sourced article. Extensive reactions. One could claim that they are merely quotes, I say important reactions to an important historic event. The quotes are not routine but responses from world leaders and prominent politicians about an historic incident. BabbaQ (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep this was actually on the news recently. Almost every article beginning with "International reactions to..." has now been to AfD, and hundreds (ok at least 50) have been kept, with only half a dozen deleted, I think that speaks for itself really. you may want to see WP:Reactions to... articles as well. I suppose some people don't like people condemning terrorist attacks, but I think these are important. Dysklyver  16:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:Reactions to... articles is an essay, and it lists more than 6 of these articles that have been deleted (not all of which had their titles start with "International"). That essay does not specifically endorse keeping or deleting such articles. And when you say "I suppose some people don't like people condemning terrorist attacks ....", I'm not sure what you are implying, but that could be read as suggesting that the opponents of this article are against condemnation of terrorist attacks, which would be an extremely inappropriate mischaracterization. What the opponents of this article are against is a list along the lines of "The leader of Afghanistan condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims. The leader of Albania condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims. The leader of Algeria condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims. The leader of Andorra condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims. ... The leader of Zambia condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims. The leader of Zimbabwe condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, when you say "this was actually on the news recently", can you provide context as to what "this" is and how it appeared on the news? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * you yourself have !voted to delete "Reactions to..." articles exactly like this one. Care to explain why this one is suddenly different? Your rationale didn't apply an actual policy-based argument so it's hard to decipher why you have changed your stance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Incoming wall of text. to answer the questions put to me.
 * Metropolitan90's first comment, which mistakes the nature of my comment, asks by implication if my original comment is "suggesting that the opponents of this article are against condemnation of terrorist attacks", to which I can only say that although I did not write it to that effect (obviously!), I am not too worried if you take it that way, since that is possibly relevant (especially so if thats what you thought after reading it).
 * The essay was linked as a neutral source of information, I don't see how "you may want to see WP:Reactions to... articles as well." equates to thinking it was policy. Its main relevance is the amount of related information it includes.
 * The issue of all the African leaders using the same statement is a matter for article cleanup, you know as well as I do that there was massive and varied response both at the time and subsequently from many people, organisations, police forces, and leaders, much of which has not been expanded on to its full potential in this article.
 * It was the BBC news channel, I can't remember which day, but it was recent, and they were talking about peoples reactions to the Charlie Hebdo event, they had some people on talking about it, they said about how tragic it was and talked about the victims families and such. This influences my personal opinion as to the enduring relevance of recording what was said, this encyclopedia is after all supposed to be the sum of all relevant knowledge.
 * To answer gracefulslick, I was at first supportive of the general idea, on the premise nothing was being lost as it was unnecessary to have an extra article when the content was in the main one etc etc, all very convincing arguments. However I have come to the opinion that trying to merge these things back into articles which are already to long is not helpful and doesn't work, sure you can say "all the worlds leaders were very upset and expressed condolences for the victims" but that does not give the depth of knowledge that can be shown in a separate article. In the instances where these articles have been deleted, the knowledge has been effectively lost, along with any chance of meaningful expansion. Additionally I have realised that a "Reactions to..." article can actually be expanded beyond a list. It has happened, there are some already, therefore this should be treated as more of a stub framework than a representation of a finished dead-end article of insufficient quality for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
 * I have realised it is not necessary to cite some WP:THING every time I express my opinion, I can see people have already discussed the guidelines in this discussion, and in many other similar discussions and piling on and parroting is pointless, this is not a vote. It is far more effective in this case to point people to an essay with plenty of information, people can make an informed decision without me having to type it all in here, it even links to many other AfD's, I am aware that precedent is not binding, but given that the nominator and other editors seek to influence the outcome of this AfD with a misstatement on the way past AfD's have resulted it is only fair to direct editors to a more neutral standpoint.
 * The so called policies (they are actually guidelines) are neither defined nor binding, and are written in a way which can mean almost anything, so editors are literally split down the middle on the meaning of even the most basic concepts. What actually matters is common sense and building a good encyclopedia, and I would highly recommend everyone to always think of WP:5P when considering what these guidelines are actually for. I have pointed out why I think what I think, expressed some possibly useful points, and that is plenty, there are others here actively arguing precedent and policy, claiming 'quote farms' violate this and that, without any obvious grounding in reality or even the common understanding of policy. Dysklyver  20:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a well-sourced article. Anything related to the attack and published by reliable sources can be taken into to the article. Considering WP:TOOBIG, we can not take these reactions into the main article and hence we need to keep this one. Btw, it's better to avoid other stuff-type arguments. -- M h hossein   talk 17:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - This one was a major event that is well sourced here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am changing my opinion to Redirect to Je suis Charlie. The event led to one major notable reaction that were not just grief statements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – major event, well sourced, ample other such articles, legitimate WP:SPINOFF. Point where I slightly agree with criticism: the structure of the article was sub-optimal. Hence I have started improvements. Others are welcome to help out! gidonb (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep While it may be true there has been a proliferation of these articles, with many created perhaps unnecessarily, that is not a valid reason to delete this article. International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting were unprecedented, and probably the most significant since the September 11 attacks. The reactions from newspapers, artists, cartoonists, world leaders, and the public was significant and highly historically notable. The reactions, which included the march in Paris, received significant, in-depth coverage on a global basis. AusLondonder (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per AusLondonder. It's a well-sourced article and this event comes just below 9/11 and hence is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we cool off on the 9/11 comparisons? For one, we are not discussing the incident itself and secondly it is a tad distasteful. This shooting was obviously terrible but 9/11 is on a whole other spectrum. Saying this incident is "just below" 9/11 -- remember 3,000 killed and over 6,000 wounded -- is a gross exaggeration.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I second this comment. 9/11 had a massive body count and triggered the War on Terror, United States invasion of Afghanistan, and quite arguably 2003 invasion of Iraq. Charlie Hebdo was a significant terror attack, led to Je suis Charlie (a long enough article in itself! A reaction we should note), and international condemnations a bit out of the norm (more than usual outpouring of sympathy, some degree of Muslim nation ambivalence due to cartoons of Mohammed etc.). However in the grand scheme of things - there it was one in a chain - and didn't lead to any significant development (yes - France heightened security yes again. Yes - there was also an attack on cartoon drawing in Texas (however there were also attacks prior to Hebdo)). We already have quite a long and comprehensive reaction section in the main article.Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If this Charlie Hebdo massacre is so important, then why nominate its international reactions article, a valid WP:SPINOFF, for deletion? If the main reason for deletion is that it isn't 9/11 wouldn't that be weak argumentation? Maybe withdraw? gidonb (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * where in my nom statement did you see me mention 9/11; how can you consider it my main reason for deletion? All I asked was for editors to not get carried away with such a comparison.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I think it is best to judge each massacre by its own impacts. The Charlie Hebdo massacre had major impacts, see for example Charlie Hebdo attacks: five ways France has changed. gidonb (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * can you consider Knowledgekid's !vote for a redirect? The target containd actual notable reactions, not just routine grief statements repeated a dozen times and easily summarized in a brief paragraph. It certainly would address the issue of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen it but strongly disagree. One article is for the popular response, the other for the formal response. Both are legitimate spinouts. As I pointed out below both have been proposed for deletion with little support. A simplified look at the more complex relations between the three articles: the fact that Charlie Hebdo attack was immediately perceived to be an important massacre (and a crossroads for the freedom of press, arts, and speech) brought wide popular reactions, strengthening again the importance of the Charlie Hebdo attack. As it came to be seen as such a major event the formal response gained in enduring importance just as well. gidonb (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Question - is anyone seeing WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of international reactions to Charlie Hebdo specifically? Are the Cambodian, Georgian, Greek, Brazilian, or Mauritian referred to by any recent sources?Icewhiz (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to an obvious extent in English sources in countries that are less connected to the incident. But the reactions in Germany, the US, Russia, Britain, Canada, Australia, Syria, Nigeria, Brazil, China, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, etc etc are still getting continued coverage and having lasting impact, and you could be sure that if there was a terror attack in Greece, the Greek response to this Charlie Hebdo incident would be back in the news. It is worth noting a certain amount of cleanup could be relevant to this article, I don't think most the responses from Africa are relevant, and there aren’t enough US and European responses, nor as much as I would like to see written about them. Dysklyver  15:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Well-sourced WP:SPINOFF page of a notable event, where the main page would be too large if the information was all included there.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - There might be a good point here that Je suis Charlie is a notable reaction while the generic expected expressions of grief are not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Je suis Charlie was also nominated for deletion. Folks will nominate anything! gidonb (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair - that nom was made on the day of the attack itself before it was clear the slogan would be as notable as it has become - and was closed as a snow keep after it became clear (it actually had some editor support on 7 Jan, but in the following days it was all keep). However, whereas Je suis Charlie has lasting notability (and definitely will be discussed in the future in conjunction with the attack and in relation to other shows of sympathy to other attacks) - the boiler plate condemnations of random foreign ministers/word leaders really do not seem to be covered more than month after the event - these are all collapsed in subsequent coverage to "condemned by almost all world leaders", with notable exceptions noted.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This seems to be a fad to nominate for deletion expressions of the milk of human kindness.  The nominator states in the nomination that the page, "has...served its purpose of keeping unimportant reactions off the main page", which is a statement that there are both unimportant and important reactions in this article.  To the extent that there is anything indiscriminate, this is something handled under WP:Editing policy, not under WP:Deletion policy, and a rather ordinary editing problem of WP:DUE.  The remedy for those who don't want to read, "France...offer[s] the world a timeless example that will endure well beyond the hateful vision of these killers", is: Don't read the article..  Unscintillating (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * keep well sourced enough, notable event for spin off. L3X1 (distænt write)  01:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quote farm of routine condolences. Notability is beside the point, this is a matter of WP:NOT - we are not a newspaper and we do not record every world leader's utterances, especially if they are nothing out of the ordinary.  Sandstein   09:17, 12 November 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.