Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks


 * 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, per WP:SNOW. It would make sense to try again in a year and see what can be left in the article and whether it should be merged in the main one.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a memorial site; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article is essentially a book of condolence and an indiscriminate collection of quotations from talking heads, most of which are of a boilerplate form that politicians trot out for every tragedy. Of course every Western and Western-friendly nation has condemned the attacks and offered solidarity; it would be impolitick not to. The article makes no attempt to suggest that the soundbites have been discussed as a group by reliable sources, because they haven't, so nor should they by Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Speedy keep - the article currently has other sections too (including one transcluded in the main November 2015 Paris attacks article), and while it's a separate article from that (possibly suggesting that we arbitrarily "put the soundbites together as a group" ourselves), it's really only separate because of length (WP:SPINOUT), otherwise, it could arguably be included in the main article, except for things like WP:NOTQUOTE, but many of the reactions given aren't verbatim quotes anyway. LjL (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it created precisely because there was a consensus against including it in the main article?  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure (though I think it was you who started requesting, by means of a comment inside the article, that nobody add quotes), but even if there's consensus to keep it out of main, that might simply be because of length, and it's entirely possible that people would have a different opinion when it's separated. Here is where they can express it, I guess. LjL (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored the hidden note a few times when it got lost in the melee, but I wasn't the originator of it. With such a high edit rate, I couldn't tell you where it was originally added but it predated my arrival at the article. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep the convergence of international reactions is notable, and I agree that this article contains information that is too long for the main article about the incidents themselves. --Pine✉ 21:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is long-term, established practice. A merger was just overwhelmingly rejected. In addition, your deletion rationale is confused and wrong. Firstly, you state "Of course every Western and Western-friendly nation has condemned the attack". Is Syria a "Western or Western-friendly" nation? Secondly, groups of reactions are incredibly notable and have featured together in sources AusLondonder (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The merger was rejected because people thought that these added no useful content to main article, not because it's so informative it deserves its own and is a noteworthy topic by itself. Reywas92 Talk 22:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP: SNOW Keep Per Ljl, AusLondoner Pine above. There are already innumerable articles on international reaction to world events and there is clear consensus for them. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 21:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is circular reasoning that because reaction lists exist therefore more should exist. When major events happen hits people rush to add whatever news they find, and it always gets out of control, but it is much more difficult to remove the excessive material barely related to the actual event. Why is it a separate article? Because a consensus on the main article here (and elsewhere) decided that these reactions become too numerous and provide little to no value to the article, so it's spun off. I do not believe there is a consensus that these statements are actually useful, but that people think that because they form naturally on high-focus articles that they seem indefinitely valid. Reywas92 Talk 22:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep The reactions of heads of state are notable, and an important component needed to understand the aftermath of the attacks. Also, states generally hostile to the West such as Iran and Cuba have condemned the attacks, so the states reacting are far more extensive than just the West. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's wrong to think that Cuba has or has had poor relations with the West. Cuba has had normal diplomatic relations with the UK, France and the rest of Europe for decades and decades. US does not = "the West". Reason for poor US relations was illegal, anti-democratic blockade condemned by every single country in world except US and Israel. Also, many of the reactions are actually from heads of govt eg Australia. PM Turnbull is not head of state. Queen is. Just some point to note AusLondonder (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand why knowing that the prime minister of Malaysia was shocked by the attacks and condemns them helps me understand them better. If it's noteworthy that non-Western countries also express condolences, this can be summarized without mentioning exactly what every leader said.
 * Snow Keep - I'm going to be absolutely honest - I don't see any point to this article and to be honest I'd be happy to see it deleted but.... to be fair we have loads of "International reactions to X" articles and the article is adequately sourced anyway so I'll have to say Keep. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then don't vote to keep just because others are! Just because something has sources doesn't mean it needs its own article.
 * I'm not !voting because others have ... I'm !voting on the notability of the subject and the sources in the article .... – Davey 2010 Talk 22:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can see this being expanded with reactions of nations towards ISIS using this attack as motivation. We have also been down this road before, as others have said. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Simple listings of what people have to say serve no purpose to the reader. They are obligatory expressions of condolences that as insubstantial quotes are repetitive and unconstructive. Paragraphs summarizing general sentiments and elaborating on actual actions taken is a good way to convey messages as a whole, but it is unencylopedic to just copy and paste whatever unconnected presidents' spokespeople put out for them whenever something bad happens in the world. Reywas92 Talk 22:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When it comes to articles you should think of potential growth. Right now there is a move discussion on the talk-page that would change this article's name to just "Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be nice, though it's rarely happened for previous events. If it happens with meaningful content expanded on that's great, but I want the useless listings of what every government/president says - the bulk of the page and the reason it was removed from the main article - gone. Reywas92 Talk 23:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, breaking the quotes down into prose is a cleanup issue though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the entire article; the prose at the top is also on the main. We don't want to break them down, but summarize that people shared condolences. Might as well delete and start over.
 * Keep: There doesn't seem to be any real reason to delete the article. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, but trim. This is notable. I was going to !vote merge, but the article is too long now. epic genius (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there is a way to make the article more than just a collection of quotes, I believe there is but it would require will and discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a way. First, summarize the gist of all the quotes. Then, cut some quotes that you don't need, because most of them are saying the same thing. epic genius (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be nice if we could remove quotes that are simply "condolecenses" and "we're close to the victims", but ironically, what is currently being deleted are the quotations from government members which give indication about policy, while the ones kept are the ones devoid of any real content. LjL (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That sucks. However, if it's possible, the government policy comments should be re-added. epic genius (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Now, they will hopefully stay, since the only editor adamant with their removal went over WP:3RR on the main article. LjL (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep reactions are still ongoing and there is room for this article to grow to include more reactions on security and Shengen politics in the EU, any changes in political situation in approach of NATO to the Syrian civil war, etc. -- Callinus (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This event also impacted the talks in Vienna . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. epic genius (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. epic genius (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Given that there was consensus not to include this content in the main article, this article is a WP: POV FORK ("Since what qualifies as a 'POV fork' can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as 'POV' except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." (WP:POVFORK)) Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 23:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, since it expresses no particular WP:POV, and the consensus may only have existed due to length concerns. This is a WP:SPINOUT per policy. LjL (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It looked to me like consensus was based on the fact that people didn't want every unrelated condolence listed - on the main article or a separate one. Reywas92 Talk</b> 23:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How can they possibly be "unrelated"? They're directly about the event. And from heads of state. If anything, they can be trite and devoid of substance, but I'm not sure that's grounds to keep international reactions completely out of Wikipedia...? LjL (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is unrelated. The leader of Taiwan has nothing to do with the event, why do we care about his condolences? Heads of state say things every day, just because they're heads of state does not mean their words must be copied on WP. Reywas92 <b style="color:#45E03A;">Talk</b> 01:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What POV are you referring to? If you want celebrations can be added as it was sadly, and disgustingly a response. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The view that a listing or some other lengthy treatment of condolences and other peripheral reactions is a noteworthy addition. Granted, this is probably a purely content rather than POV issue (see my modified comment above). Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 23:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - In my experience this reaction page is quickly getting out-of-hand compared to the earlier tragedies. This is the longest list of little flags I have ever seen. It is already even longer than the Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. I also supported renaming the article elsewhere. Much of the content is unconstructive and essentially redundant. However, there are valid reasons for having a WP:SPINOFF/WP:SPINOUT article. Ceosad (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that whether the flags are used or not is really not germane to the question of what to do with the article. Greenshed (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge - Just simply bring it into the other article... after the fact, if there are legitimate reasons to make it it's own article again down the road, so be it. // Posted by larsona ( Talk ) // 00:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This article basically exists because people didn't want it in the main article in the first place. There's clear consensus on that. LjL (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE – Article is essentially "my condolences for what happened" repeated 50+ times. It's not encyclopedic in the least. Same goes for other similar articles. The notion of using precedent articles is not helpful here. The actual content needs to be re-evaluated and only substantial actions should be kept. The only viable argument for keeping these types of articles is that they indirectly show the status of international relations. Take that how you will. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * SNOWy Keep absurd nomination distorting policy and ignoring precedent, right when the article will be highly visible to the public. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What precedent might that be? Perhaps instead of vague allusions and hyperbole you'd like to explain how dozens of routine statements from politicians aids the reader's understanding of the topic? Or how the contents of the article aren't indiscriminate (good luck with that one!)? Or how the reactions as a body have been discussed in depth by multiple reliable sources? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You should read WP:POTENTIAL, take all of the quotes condense them into a paragraph and focus on other areas of the article. You keep focusing on the current state of the article rather than possibly thinking of a way outside of that box. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Substantial actions taken by the international community should be kept within the main article for the time being as they are relatively limited and mostly logistical support. Only thing I see coming in the future that could keep this article viable is a potential wave of backlash against Merkel and her open door policy which is clearly starting to backfire...but that's just my opinion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Take all the quote, condense them into one paragraph without all the flags etc. Then delete that paragraph. Whatever's left, like the social media response, condense to a level that gives it due weight (I'd say roughly one small paragraph) and incorporate it into the main article. Likewise with actual, concrete action; if that develops further it can be covered in more detail then. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  02:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep contents are referenced by reliable sources and there is too much here to merge into the main article. I fully accept that some (possibly many) people have no interest in the international reactions.  However some people do - especially concerning how countries with which France has not always enjoyed good relations respond. Greenshed (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep These article included some leaders responses. It is like the article Humanitarian response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake.--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a completely different situation. Humanitarian response is something quantifiable that we can grasp. It includes substantial actions taken by numerous nations to aid those in need, far beyond the endless statements of condolence listed in this article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Countries are offering aid here how much aid qualifies for it to be notable? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Only a handful of nations, including the UK and US, have actually provided aid or put forth concrete statements on what aid they plan on providing. Most statements are vague attached to the messages of condolence (something along the lines of "Our condolences to France; the people of [nation] are willing to provide assistance in the wake of this tragedy."). Unlike natural disasters, this won't require a huge international humanitarian movement for recovery so aid won't likely be a large aspect. The bigger story, for lack of a better word, will be the political side attached to the refugee crisis as well as how France moves forward with Syria. All this information, as of now, can easily be contained within the main article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I for one was hoping the article would be more devoted to all the high-profile public displays of the French tricoleur on buildings in world capitals, etc., and perhaps that's a way for the article to grow. There's no doubt in my mind that the international reaction easily meets our notability guidelines. I can see the article being useful down the road for general public as well as students who want a summary of the international reaction to this event, all in one place. As for substantial actions, we are still in the early hours of this. Poland has already closed its borders to refugees, there's one. World leaders are meeting now in Turkey. Let's give this time. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I never understood the reasoning for keeping an article like this. These are generic statements of support of France and we don't need to catalog them. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep only because there are a lot of other similar articles like this, but I overall agree with HJ Mitchell. Kiwifist (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Obviously notable and reliably sourced. Verwoerd (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * SNOWBALL Keep It certainly seems notable enough. More importantly, this article is getting a lot of views: 20,000 just yesterday . (By comparison Elias Abraham Rosenberg got about 10,000 yesterday when it was featured on the main page.) It's kind of embarrassing to have the big deletion tag at the top of the article, and leaving this open 7 days for the sake of bureaucracy isn't going to help anything. Close this for now, and then after things have calmed down and the pages have stopped being renamed and merged we can revisit this if needed. ~Awilley (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any major catastrophe nowadays attracts statements of compassion and support by international leaders as a matter of course. Reproducing them at length violates WP:NOTNEWS. To the limited extent such statements are out of the ordinary, they should be mentioned in the main article.  Sandstein   08:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, for consistency with International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting in which many fewer people died. If it isn't kept, reactions should certainly be integrated into the main article for the same reason. 2601:600:8500:5B1:4869:CAA2:C6C4:492F (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are many similar articles HERE.
 * Keep Of course such material is unencyclopedic but retaining this article helps the encyclopedia by helping protect the main article. Thincat (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep because there are lots of similar articles on Wikipedia, also, it's very sourced anyway. Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 12:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There were similar concerns raised with the existence of the Je Suis Charlie article, recognizing that the event has provoked a phenomenal amount of global attention constitutes its own entry; the separate nations' responses are critical to the overall implications of the event, but are far too lengthy to surmise on the entry for the attacks themselves. Curlymanjaro (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Dreadful, worthless garbage per nom and unencyclopedic per Sandstein. Probably a strategic keep for now though; this article can function as a septic tank for this material to keep it off the main article. Once a few weeks have passed, we can strip out the worst garbage and all the non-notable quotes and see if anything is left. --John (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Boy, I tell ta, we've really pissed off the admins with this one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean me, I would point out that I am not acting as an admin here, but as a long-term editor who knows what Wikipedia is and is not. --John (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:John Your comments are disgusting, cruel and embarrassing. To suggest condolences belong in a septic tank is vile. Also, if you are planning on destroying this article in defiance of the community in a few weeks please note strong resistance will occur. AusLondonder (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cut out the drama and the near-personal attacks please. LjL (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:LjL - who are you referring to? AusLondonder (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is very relevant to the issues of modern civilization. Terror attacks have a huge impact on humanity and the reaction of others, whether it be your "superior", equal, or lesser, is of the greatest importance due to the fact that it can lead to the moral values of individuals.  Relationships between countries are essential and this is something that the general public would need to have access to.  Reactions are a critical part of modern history.  --Cody (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.185.236.64 (talk)
 * Speedy keep - this nomination is part of the agenda by certain people who feel these are too "biased" and "feel good" for Wikipedia. Notability is what matters here as always - from the Pope's response saying the attacks are part of World War III to Obama's statement affirming that France is the United States' oldest ally, these messages receive significant mass media coverage and analysis. They are most definitely of encyclopedic value - wouldn't you like to know what the Russian tsar had to say after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand? Not to mention these attacks are perpetrated "in the name" of Islam - how is not important to note the official response by predominantly Muslim nations and mainstream Muslim groups? And they're not all platitudes but included comments about closing the Schengen zone. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep this article is useful, people may want to know what Bashar al-Assad said about the attacks, or what Hezbollah said. It is also well sourced, and is notable. The #PrayForParis and the Peace for Paris symbol is also a bit reminiscent of Je suis Charlie is it not?  Seagull123  Φ  14:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - If for no other reason than it's so soon after the event. I remember at some point there was even a proposed policy about waiting for the dust to settle.  I would agree that a large majority of the reactions on the list are really just meaningless platitudes (e.g. "we strongly condemn the attacks and express our condolences."), but there are some with a bit more substance. For example the Syrian government draws a comparison to the terrorism they have experienced, and Russia calls for the attacks to inspire more cooperation against terrorism. Perhaps in the future the article might be trimmed down to the point where it could comfortably fit within the main article, but I don't think it's best to try to do that right now.  Also, a more centralized discussion might be useful to determine criteria for what merits inclusion as an "international reaction."  I could see where it might make sense to only detail the reactions with more substantive content, and then for the others just say something like: "Countries A, B, C, D, E....and Z condemned the attacks and expressed their condolences." -Helvetica (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment When will they (User:John, User:HJ Mitchell, User:Cyclonebiskit) nominate Reactions to the September 11 attacks or Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks or International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 or International reactions to the 2015 Chapel Hill shootings for deletion? AusLondonder (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But but but those topics are about things that happened in the USA! How can you compare them? —Мандичка YO 😜 15:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, User:Wikimandia. That's the problem, here. This didn't happen in the Grand Ole U S of A. In happened in the Old World. It's not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * SNOWBALL CLOSE this, someone, for pity's sake. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC).


 * Speedy keep is it really necessary to explain this? Ladsgroupoverleg 15:43, 15 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.