Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

'International reactions' articles are usually pretty trivial, and this one is no exception. The vast majority of it is simply world leaders congratulating Obama on his re-election and saying they look forward to continuing to work with him. The same happens with every major world election; there's nothing particularly interesting there. The 'financial markets', 'media' and 'others' sections are slightly more interesting, but could easily be incorporated into the main article. Robofish (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * keep Theres no way to keep adding to the main article as it is already much too large and in the coming days when its off the news, will need to be trimmed and put on to other pages. Further, WP is an encycopaedia not a news service, for research purposes (poli scientists in school) it shows who said what and not everything here is straightforward either. Further many mentions are for specific issues not generic congratulationsLihaas (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's way too soon to dismiss this article as a mere list of congratulations. Especially the Media section and supranational organisations have a potential for expansion. And yes, other stuff does exist at International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008. De728631 (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Most of the article appears to be a blatant violation of WP:QUOTEFARM. I'm not saying that the article should be deleted because of its current shape, and if some notable info can be mentioned without full sections of quotes, it can very well be kept. Secret of success  ·  talk  13:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep- it offers some much-needed foreign perspective on U.S. elections (which wikipedia severely lacks), and I see no harm in keeping it. --Yalens (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep- maybe make the wording of the article more unbias, but the article still serves its purpose where other articles leave off 64.128.27.82 (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep To the contrary, international reactions are not trivial, especially when it involves something of this magnitude that many countries around the world have been eagerly watching. It isn't exactly repetitive per say, because the United States maintains various important foreign relations that all behave differently (e.g. Iran's reaction is different from Venezuela's, even if they both have cautious relations with the U.S.). While most countries in the world may seem to be congratulating the President with generally similar sentiments, there are those who may not be as keen to congratulate him. Some countries may have not even sent official congratulatory remarks. Not to mention, the article may (if it doesn't already) include reactions from international institutions such as the U.N. As it was stated earlier as well, there have been other pages on international reactions to previous U.S. elections. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't need international reaction articles just because we can find information to put in them. Especially ones where the majority of the reactions are going to be the same. They become a list of quotes and to be honest are a lazy way way of adding information to the encyclopedia. Summarise them at the main article, it is actually pretty easy. AIR corn  (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We can improve (through dicussion). but thats not a reason to delete altogether.Lihaas (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Substantive and encyclopedic list article, which otherwise would be excessive to merge into the main article. The reactions may seem similar, but touch on notable, ongoing issues relevant to varied geographic and political spheres. --HidariMigi (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep "there's nothing particularly interesting there. The 'financial markets', 'media' and 'others' sections are slightly more interesting, but could easily be incorporated into the main article" This sounds like an opinion to me, the only thing you have for deleting this is WP:TRIVIAL which is something you want to avoid in deletion discussions as the article passes alot of other criteria - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- encyclopedic? Yes. Verifiable? Yes. Causing any harm? Nope. — Theo polisme  23:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Otherwise, why keep the 2008 counterpart article?-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  00:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why indeed. I think that should be deleted as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't expect my Delete comment to change anything, but we really need a sitewide rethinking of these "International reactions to..." articles. I don't know why it is considered useful or encyclopedic to note every trite thing that foreign heads of states say in response to ordinary events. There are some international reactions articles that are good, presenting important political stances (e.g. Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden) or noting actions, rather than words, by foreign leaders and organizations, but this is not one of them. A summary of notable or unusual responses should be put in the main election article. --  tariq abjotu  14:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Could start a discussion somewhere, but everytime this happens community-wide consensus is against removing them. Bearing in mind that encycopaedic is for the reader not the editor, which is easy to confuse since we get blinkered by our additions/involvement here. The main premise/question being what is wikipedia? Social media/news? Or an encyclopaedia? If the latter then what does an encyclopaedia do? Everything of interest to one person's research is not of the other, and vice versa.Lihaas (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about those previous discussions, but some of these international reactions articles could be useful and informative. The one for the 2008 election, for example, despite being in worse shape than this one currently, is more notable, given the political climate at the time and the replacement of a globally (and domestically?) unpopular president with one who was heralded around the world. But this election, and the reactions, don't carry that significance. As it stands now, this article is just an indiscriminate collection of quotes. No effort is made to summarize anything -- not the quotes from foreign leaders, not the reactions from news organizations (really, that's just a list smushed into paragraph form). And if you did, you'd find it could fit in the main election article perfectly fine (although I suppose it seems to be par for the course there to make a sub-article or sub-sub-article about anything more than a paragraph long). I'm not interested in answering existential questions about Wikipedia, but I can't imagine that this kind of article meets our goals in any way. Just because we can write about it doesn't mean we should. There's a reason The New York Times motto is "All the News That's Fit to Print", rather than just "All the News". Why can't we show a similar level of prudence? --  tariq abjotu ' 23:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Im not talking about existential views of WP, im making the point that it fits into the intended goal vs. the oft-misviewed goal seeing it as a news source (per user above who said its not news). One can also re-do the page in sandbox and work it in here. Or someone could just take some bold measure and re-work on it. Improvement is not a reason for deletion.
 * Also the view of 2008 vs. 2012 and taking other cases are then subjective and open each issue for a new discussionLihaas (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Encyclopedic topic. Smarkflea (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – As has already been said, this is an encyclopedic topic. Automatic  Strikeout  00:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per above.ElectroPro (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and close early; obviously notable. Everyking (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep it serves a useful encyclopaedic purpose. I'm sure I've seen a graphic somewhere showing how, prior to the election, polls in a bunch of countries showed almost universal popular support for Obama. I may try to dig it out if I can find the time, but it's a great indicator of how far to the right the Overton window is in the US.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Many articles have had a similar section to this. The 2008 Presidential Election article has one. Your opinion that sections like these seem trivial is irrelevant, it's very useful. I agree with the previous comments arguing to keep this.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This should just be a paragraph in Obama's re-election, having a separate article for it is plainly ridiculous. Are we going to have separate articles for each continent, too? There's got to be limits to how much one can milk a subject. complainer (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes we would IF there wee as many. Ive edited numerous election articles int he past when the result was out and the reactions are MUCH smaller. See Finland's 2011 election article (now GA and possibly a FA)Lihaas (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is exactly this kind of cancerous proliferation of filler news that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER tries to prevent. Six months from now, most of the international reactors won't even be in office anymore, and their mostly automated and perfunctory comments will be of no interest whatsoever--if they even are now. And one doesn't need a WP:CRYSTALBALL to predict that. complainer (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguement to me, articles on wikipedia dont goto GA status by being a "cancerous proliferation", also when you say Notable by whose standards do you mean? Right now the article has the widespread coverage and the sources to back up notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what it sounds like to you, it is still a WP:NOTNEWSPAPER argument, which, incidentally, assumes there is widespread coverage. As for when I said "notable", I can't help you there: I haven't used the word at all. complainer (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the presence of ITN creates/encourages the creation of news pieeces that stay stubs/little more than stubs and get passed as supportive for its "encyclopaedic content". Also see 2012 Terror attacks in Kenya and the numerous oneevent articles created there.Lihaas (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with Tariqabjotu. "International reactions" articles are spinning out of control. There is no indication that these "international reactions" are in anyway notable. This is an unencyclopedic sub-subject and should as such be deleted as WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing encyclopedic in this article as it looks like a mere list of predictable congratulations. International reactions articles interesting sometimes, but not in case of almost full predictability. L.tak (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, please read it. There are numerous more than Congrats" statements including what is expected nad then the other comments of criticism /support for ROmney, etc. Only stuff like Armenia is run-of-the-millLihaas (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: It seems none of the deletionists have put forward any reason for why having the page is harmful in and of itself...--Yalens (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Ironically, I consider myself a slight Wikipedia deletionist, because I too believe in "less is more." In this case, though, I'm defending the article for once. As I mentioned earlier, I believe international reactions are not something to be trivialized. They may seem very similar, but it should be important to remember that for all intents and purposes, every foreign relation is treated differently on the international stage. Additionally, the U.S. election has had prominent attention from the outside world (One source has indicated Obama favorability over Romney). GabeIglesia (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do they have to show that it causes harm? AIR corn (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, why didn't I get that the first time; delete-voters are deletionists! Let's not listen to them! Let's instead stop (not delete of course ;-)) the PROD and AfD processes as they are only favouring those terrible non-community-worthy "deletionist-individuals". L.tak (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * PROD and AfD are fine when they don't go after pages that are verifiable from reliable sources on the grounds that they don't like them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM goes on to try and claim that it's harmful, so even the page you link to seem to think that they have to show it causes harm.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you might be reading a different page. AIR corn (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you linked the wrong page, then, because the page you linked to says "For example, if there has not been any verifiable information published in reliable sources about the subject then there is no way to check whether the information in the article is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in. As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here."--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS. It is a collection of congratulatory messages from allies and curses/disappointments etc. from opponents. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It's verifiable and from reliable sources and has the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Yes, yes, it has!--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For the third time (and counting), nobody is contesting that. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (paragraph 2) is about enduring notability, not about notability per se. complainer (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because no one could possibly want to know the international reaction to the United States presidential election of 1860 or 1980 today, right? This clearly passes the general standard of enduring that Wikipedia uses.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This kind of perfunctory messages was not yet in style in 1860; the 1980 US presidential election does not have a separate article for international reactions nor, in fact, even a section or passing mention about them. The same is true for all presidential elections until 2008, when the amount of wikipedia editors was unprecedented, and the ongoing financial crisis had freed much of their time. The same editors worked at previous elections articles too, but felt no need to collect international reactions: this proves better than anything else the point that this type of news is only of interest when it is hot in the press. complainer (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * I would have closed the discussion as a keep, but for the sequence of increasing delete !votes. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 13:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as a textbook example of WP:NOTNEWS Back in the days before Wikipedia, this stuff was used as filler to keep the A section of the newspaper from getting too small; most of it went unreported because, well, nobody really cared, and there was generally enough political news/gossip to fill the news hole. And nobody really cares today; it's just more accessible because it's used to fill up websites instead of paper pages. The first two-thirds of it is routine pro forma diplomatic chatter, utterly unnoteworthy. Most of the rest is talking-heads space-filling speculation which in an earlier age would be filed in the periodicals section of the library or put on microfilm and ignored forever after; it is impossible to pick out what is notably prescient or stupid, and unless it somehow seizes the imagination of the world (which none of it has—I would have noticed) there's no reason to memorialize any of it here. Verifiability is beside the point; its the unimportance the material that is the problem. It's being used to fill out the WP:UNDUE trope that this is some sort of "Once to Every Man and Nation" epochal decision, when the truth is that this kind of material is ground out at every election, and then promptly (and rightly) set aside and ignored. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a good WP:LISTPURP with plenty of precedent on other election pages. Given its length I think it's appropriate to keep it separate rather than merge it. Faustus37 (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see this "plenty of precedent": I see one other article (for 2008) which is also up for deletion, in my opinion rightly so, and an article for Canada in the 2000 election which I have put up for deletion because it reduces to about two sentences worth of unsurprising content. Whatever international reaction is recorded for earlier elections was apparently somehow forced into the main articles for each. Mangoe (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The precedents are mainly in the election articles themselves, an exception being International reaction to the 2009 Iranian presidential election. I'm referring to "Reactions" sections in articles such as Greek legislative election, May 2012, Philippine general election, 2010, Russian legislative election, 2011, Turkish general election, 2011 and so forth. Under most circumstances I would prefer to have such information in the main election articles as well, but given its size I think it makes more sense to have a standalone article in this particular case (and for 2008 too, for that matter) Faustus37 (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * These examples mostly fit into the patterns I've discussed. The Turkish case is exactly like this one, only not split out; it was a routine election with routine responses, and the whole section should mostly vanish. The Greek, Philippine, and Russian cases have small, proportionate reaction sections in the main article, exactly as I have been advocating. The Iranian case is, from a quick reading, an example of a more substantial controversy which has been padded out to great length by the inclusion of a lot of reaction from those whose input in the matter is not very important. I think it could be folded back into the main article by editing it down to a more reasonable length.


 * In the end your defense reads to me as something of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Some of the cases you cite seem reasonable to me because the outcome was contentious or unexpected and had foreign relations repercussions simply by virtue of the event itself (and not just because of who won), but these examples tend to be short and to the point. Other cases look just like this one and need to be pruned back if not deleted outright, just as this one should be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - per above. Go   Phightins  !  22:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - encyclopedic, and important. A wiki-worthy artcle.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Would it be possible for the vast majority of those supporting inclusion to bother to elaborate beyond the "deserves to be here because it's good" stage? complainer (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather, I think it is incumbent upon those supporting deletion to make their case. The article is already "included" --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but thinking an AfD discussion consists of those supporting deletion making reasoned argument, and those supporting continued inclusion getting away with "encyclopedic, and important", is a serious misunderstanding of the process. WP:ATA, and WP:UNENCYC in particular clearly imply that the burden of argument is equal for both sides. complainer (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't understand the popularity of these "International reactions to ..." articles. Maybe we should have an article titled International reactions to Hurricane Sandy. I'm sure lots of foreign leaders must have offered sympathy to the victims.    They might even have taken the daring stance of condemning the hurricane. Maybe we could compile 100 entries of foreign leaders saying the same thing, put a flag logo and country name in front of each, and call that an article. I am not submitting a recommendation in this case because my views on this type of this article appear to be far from the consensus, but I would appreciate it if some kind of standard would be established to decide what circumstances merit an "International reactions to ..." article. (And, by the way, I do not actually want an International reactions to Hurricane Sandy article to be created.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Faustus37 (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You (among others) create consensus, and there certainly is a clear policy on the matter: refusing to express your vote in this case is WP:MAJORITY. complainer (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Point well taken. See below for my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The comments by world leaders when a new world leader gets elected, is clearly notable for an encyclopedia to have.  D r e a m Focus  12:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see the Encyclopedia Britannica is just crammed full with this kind of articles... complainer (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If they had limitless space they might. I created a category to group all these sorts of articles together Category:International reactions and populated it with 33 articles thus far.  Many more could be added.  It is historically important to record how world leaders and people in charge of the UN and whatnot, respond to various major events.   D r e a m Focus  14:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in the article "international reactions to elections" or international reactions to United States presidential elections to see what diplomatism dictates on the "mores" of such a reaction and how cultural differences would change it. No idea if that was studied enough not to be complete OR, but if we'd manage, that would be encyclopedic content! L.tak (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia Britannica does have "limitless" space, as they have gone online-only some six months ago. They still don't have a single article about "international reactions" and those sections they have are limited to events that lend themselvs to non-trivial commentary, chiefly major diplomatic crises. complainer (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This isnt Encyclopedia Britannica though, this is wikipedia every encyclopedia does things diffrent, you cant sit there and tell me that there is a single way every encyclopedia handles things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement "clearly notable for an encyclopedia to have" does, not me. The position of the writer is, however, unknown to me: it is entirely possible he was standing while making the assertion. complainer (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Aircorn and Muboshgu. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as a textbook example of where NOT NEWS does not apply. The international comment about the election is a topic which will remain permanently of historical interest. What the EB covers is only a small subset of what WP covers, and one of the reasons we exist is to remedy their deficiencies.  DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - great overview article - does not matter some think other articles are out of control. Moxy (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think this one is out of control too, and I am quite sure I am not the only one. But it probably "doesn't matter" either. complainer (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: clichéd statements of congratulation that were probably written weeks before the election, and filed alongside near-identical letters to Romney in the hope that the relevant diplomat would make sure he hands over the correct envelope. Kevin McE (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edit statement says "Dear (insert name of winner), congratulations on gaining/retaining (del as applicable) the presidency. Please don't tax our exports too much, and don't bomb us. Yours sincerely, ...". Surely which countries are asking us not to bomb them is interesting in the long run. I'm sure a good thesis is available to anyone who could get both copies and find how similar and not similar they are.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Whooosh Kevin McE (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fuck you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And for all your asinine mockery, it doesn't look like you bothered to look at the article, which is a detailed discussion of what concerns people around the world about the US. There's nothing standardized or clichéd about most of the responses.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The topic certainly is important, and the article fun to skim through. (I especially liked the reaction of the Cuban state newspaper: "The worst one did not win.") However the whole thing is really a collection raw data, not an article.  The data should be archived somewhere, but that's not WP's goal role. Four years from now we can write "Obama presidency#Legacy" and the important info (as reported by secondary sources) will be included there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep (again) and comment: This "extended" debate is out-of-order; the discussion already reached effective consensus, but now is being prolonged until every delete commenter can weigh in? IMHO, this sort of article is precisely why Wikipedia exists: it is a well-referenced list of reactions of international leaders and bodies to a major world event. No other place has such information-- nor is it appropriate to any other Wiki project. For those who might be confused, it is not a "news article" -- even if there have been similar (but significantly shorter) resources produced by AP. This is not 1) a first-hand account of original research; 2) written in journalistic style; 3) an insignificant single event such as "announcements, sports, or celebrities." It is an expansion of an important part of the main United States presidential election, 2012 article which it can not be folded back into, due to the sheer volume of reactions. For better or worse, the Presidency of the United States is the most powerful position in the world-- and the election of the president impacts the course of events not only within the American sphere of influence, but in every aspect of globe: economically, culturally, militarily and politically. Those who wish to remove this article seem to me to be losing sight that Wikipedia is not paper. Articles such as this are critical to the utility of the project, where relatively obscure topics tend to dominate, such as lists of every episode of Pokemon. By way of comparison, consider the valuable Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 which is "merely a collection of raw data." -- HidariMigi (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not that there are no "reactions" or that they cannot be documented; it's that these statements are largely routine and unimportant. Soon enough they will be overcome by the press of actually having to govern, just as all the statements made back in 2008 and 2004 and 1900 and 1848 were overcome. The continued going on about how important the presidency is isn't going to improve the significance of the reactions. I suppose if some government said something way out of the ordinary, that reaction would be notable, precisely because the breach of protocol would be taken by all as a very strong message. If any government did that, the TL;DR listing hid it from me; I would expect that an article limited to such reactions could be folded back into the main article. Mangoe (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read the article there are plenty of non-=conventional reactions. An d even for the congratulatuions messages there are many that include specific issues which make it pertinent. Poland's for one is notable in that 3 months ago there were article of "how obama lost poland" and polands anger at the scrapping of th emissile system. Some comments like Armenia are run-of-the-mill, but those are fewer.Lihaas (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's face it, the list of Pokemon episodes (or other Pokemon-related lists) is something that pops up like an Armillaria in AfD discussion, usually, as it does here, as an incarnation of the other stuff exists argument. It is, however, a way of comparing apples and oranges: Pokemon articles are relevant for a frivolous subject, whereas this article is irrelevant for an important one. WP:NOTPAPER is also a much abused argument, as the fact that we have more available space does absolutely not mean we have a duty of filling it with crud. "Critical to the utility of the project" is, clearly, an exaggeration, as people extensively read only about 1% of the articles, those that would still be there if wikipedia were, indeed, made of paper; anything else is there because we are finnicky, without making a real difference (thankfully) on our server load. Without having the statistics, I'd bet quite a lot of money that more people have read the subject of this AfD because of this AfD than ever will read it out of interest in the inane commentaries it lists. What we are discussing here is, therefore, a formality, one that, indeed matters not in itself, as long as articles like this do not start spreading like the above-mentioned Armillarias; this fungal danger is the core of my proposal to delete it; I see no argument as pressing coming from the side of those supporting its survival. Incidentally, Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 is an article whose utility completely expired the moment the actual election results were announced: who, aside from some obscure statistician, would ever care about what people thought would be the outcome of an event after the outcome of such event has been officially announced? This is beyond WP:OSE: it's a spin-off that should aptly be named WP:otherCrudExists. complainer (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The outcome of everything in Wikipedia has been announced; it's called the heat-death of the universe. The outcome of the Cold War has been announced; should we start deleting all the reports about what people thought was going to happen, every article about how people responded to the threat of WW3? We could start erasing whole football season; all that matters is the score of the final game, right?--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite; but bookies' predictions as to what the score of single games would be, or who would win the season, yes, that is definitely not worth an article. As for WW3, I don't see any polling, aside perhaps for the Doomsday Clock; I am sure we could dig some out, and I am happy nobody has that much free time on his hands. Incidentally, before calling an article "valuable", you might want to think hard under which circumstances, barring duress, patrol and AfD you might ever want to actually read it. The result for Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012, or even for the object of this discussion might surprise you. complainer (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as valid, important, encyclopedic coverage of election and too long to keep in main article. Those who think these reactions are insignificant don't have to read the article, but others may find this a valuable resource.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To the cost of repeating myself, can you actually think of anybody who might? Or are we keeping the wikipedia staff working for a completely theoretical group? complainer (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite easily. Look at the traffic stats for any page and youll find most people read WP, most are nt editors having this discussion and we are cereating content for just us.Lihaas (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I now have--specifically, I have looked at the traffic for [| the page discussed here] and the [| oyster] page, which I chose because it was visited roughly the same number of times. If this doesn't convince you to delete the article, I don't know what will: the oyster page is visited by a steady 2000 people a day, this one shows exponential decay, with over 20000 the day of its creation followed by tapering down to (currently) a few dozens, which will, if the trend continues, completely disappear within weeks. Finally WP:NOTNEWS can be put into a graph even people who can't be bothered to read the policy can enjoy. complainer (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep (again) as per above, clearly there are many people interested in it, there are already plenty of analogous pages on wiki for which it is merely data collection or a list of international responses to x-event, and so on... I'm pretty curious though, why its this one that the controversy pops up on, not the gazillion other similar pages that already existed. --Yalens (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I really, really advise you read WP:OSE, which now risks having your picture on the corner of the page... complainer (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment Why are we relodging keeps(/deletes)? L.tak (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because apparently the discussion was restarted here o.O? A better question would be why we're still debating this...--Yalens (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your last point. I have heard all arguments multiple times now, so it should be possible to draft a conclusion; I guess it will pop up for closure tomorrow, one week after the extension... L.tak (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't need to to say it again. The discussion wasn't restarted, it was just extended past its normal one week deadline.  Please strike out the duplicate votes.   D r e a m Focus  00:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dream, it just makes things more confusing for the closing admin, when a deletion discussion is extended it usually means to try to extend to new editors POV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Or you can just disregard any post that says again in bold =P. --Yalens (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: I see the importance of WP:NOTNEWS, and some reactions are certainly in the moment with no long term value. But I think there will be enough of a sustained impact of the election on international events that this article can be pruned of the ephemeral, and expanded with the more long-term impact. And if I'm wrong, merging to an article about American foreign policy would be a good idea. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:29, 22 November 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.