Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown


 * 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. Consensus was for keep. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 14:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unimportant responses to a minor event. Fails WP: GNG. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 21:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. epic genius (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't agree was a minor event. It received significant coverage globally and had serious diplomatic consequences. Highly notable and information any credible encyclopaedia would include. AusLondonder (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - not a minor event, and WP:POINTY nomination per this. LjL (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not WP:POINTy, seeking to get a clear consensus about these articles and their concept, User:LjL. AusLondonder (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - long and involved coverage over months and months. Clearly notable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - passes GNG easily. International reactions to major international news events, especially by heads of state, are historically notable and encyclopedic content.  —Мандичка YO 😜 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which criterion of Speedy keep do you make this under? If not, your !vote should simply be a standard keep !vote. Stickee (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The voter has his right to express his vote in any form he likes especially since a reason is given. It is up to the closing admin or non-admin to decide if the closing is done based on speedy keep or not. WP:CONSENSUS. Optakeover  (Talk)  10:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Im not seeing any convincing argument for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * SNOW close please... this was not a minor event but a major diplomatic incident (as well as a massacre).  For this reason the international response is very important.  cf. the Paris example where we already know, more or less, what everyone is going to say. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC).


 * Keep' I agree with the above, can this really be considered a minor event? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * erm, you already !voted above... LjL (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thanks for that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I previously wrote an essay at Reactions to... articles aka WP:REACTIONS that describes some of the issues with these "International reactions" articles and lists some of the previous outcomes of debates around them. It is not intended as a guideline, but more a reflection of how editors have dealt with such articles before. That said, editors may be interested in extending the essay or working it into a guideline - perhaps a supplement to WP:EVENT. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you were looking for Template:Merge, but... Edit: this was started because another page had been nominated for deletion; the difference was that it was probably nominated while still new and short. This article is of questionable value when it doesn't even mention the recordings and transcripts released by Ukraine in a large number of languages, in "reaction" to the crash. Still, actually merging is too much work, so keep 2601:600:8500:5B1:D41B:E837:1128:2F01 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Responses to an event don't become notable because the event was. Indiscriminate information: a collection of (predictable) response which are run-of-the-mill for such events, where the only rationale for inclusion is verifiability--in other words, everything that made it to a newspaper or website is suitable for inclusion. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – I've voted delete for the US presidental election and Norwegian attack 'international reaction' pages, but for this particular one I think there is some encyclopedic value – in particular, the fact that it lists many countries responses, the help they sent, the actions they called on the UN to take, etc. – that's encyclopedic enough for me, as it supports the main topic. (cf. the two I voted delete for, which were just a long list of inconsequential diplomatic quotations which did nothing to build on the main topic) Aspirex (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked, but I couldn't find it (I did see that someone "deeply condoled the crash"). If there's something there, why couldn't it be moved to the relevant section of the main article? Also, why would it become a better topic if more countries are listed? I'm sure every one of these events could in principle have as many entries as there are countries in the world. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is a total of slightly more than 200, nothing too tragic. LjL (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - With this article, Malaysia Flight 17 was a major accident which is far from a 'minor accident'. A minor accident would be a scratch or something, but loosing an aircraft with all lives aboard is a major accident and it certainly passes WP:GNG, international responses is a fair topic to cover on Wikipedia especially after major tragic events, there is no reason for the AFD and a WP:SNOW.  A dog 104  Talk to me 20:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - countries commenting on international incidents is fairly standard diplomatic stuff mostly with no relevance to the acutal events but just polite behaviour, this was created to keep this non-relevant stuff out of the main article and is probably time to ditch it as not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Are you kidding me, nominator? MH17 is a very notable event as an air crash that has received extensive media coverage, and one which was highly controversial. Definitely passes WP:GNG. Also, this page is definitely required for list of international reactions, a lengthy article to prevent the already-lengthy MH17 page from becoming longer. Optakeover  (Talk)  17:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment just to note that notability is not inherited and what is a load of dross dropped from the main article doesnt make this notable. Also it is highly unlikely that this political polite stuff would ever make it back into the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this article relates to the subject that is talked about in the main article, that is to me where the notability lies. And your second point is a good point; that's why speedy keep. Optakeover  (Talk)  19:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm afraid the force is not strong in this one, Obi-Wan. WP:GNG in its own right is easily met. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:11, 22 November 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.