Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to the Giffords assassination attempt


 * 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   Delete. This is an incredibly difficult AfD, both due to the recency of the events the article is covering, and because of the tensions surrounding it. Not only that, but the overarching guideline, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, is small on detail and large on jurisdiction. While I'd normally launch into a large rant on the need for people to make comments that actually cite policy, directly or indirectly, given the difficulties with this AfD I will restrain myself to a small rant. Guerillero's apparent belief that you need consensus on a related talkpage before you can make an article seems confusing, as is Diannaa's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument - both him (her?) and Clarityfiend could do to take a read of that essay. Nakon's argument is, of course, invalid - I think I actually declined the original CSD myself (hopefully this doesn't make me seem to have some kind of COI).

The general argument that "talk page consensus elsewhere has not permitted this article to exist, so it should be deleted" or "talkpage consensus is that the content shouldn't be on this page, so it should be perfectly acceptable to keep it in a separate article" is particularly frustrating. Consensus, formed at one time, between one group of editors, can be changed and overruled. The editors at the talkpage were not asked if they were fine with this content existing here, nor where they asked if they were fine with this content existing at all. They were asked if the content should be removed from that sole article. I cannot comment on the number of talkpage contributors who turned up at this AfD, but suffice to say any consensus on keeping or deleting bits of content should, unless there are exceptional circumstances, not extend further than the individual page and content being discussed. You will note that WP:G4 covers content deleted via a deletion discussion, precisely because it is not appropriate to carry consensus over in this fashion.

Discounting those comments which aren't "proper" comments - i.e., not giving actual reasons and instead relying on WP:ILIKEIT and other non-arguments — consensus is fairly clearly in favour of deletion; even if we go back to Ye Olde Been Countinge Days, it turns out the same way. A few people have been suggesting it be kept because, should consensus change, it will be far more difficult to restore the content. Rest assured that I am prepared to restore bits and bobs temporarily to allow for its inclusion elsewhere, if consensus is reached that said inclusion is acceptable; just drop a note on my talkpage. As a final note, I did like Fetchcomm's keep/rename argument (a shame there isn't consensus for it) to move to an "Aftermath of the 2011 Tuscon Shooting" page and roll in everything else that may/will change due to the shootings - that seems like something which might appease both sides of the debate. I would advise you to get together and argue it out again, preferably taking Fetchcomm's argument (it's the least divisive option I can see) as a starting point. Should consensus be reached to include the content in some form, I will, again, be perfectly willing to restore segments for the move over. Ironholds (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Reactions to the 2011 Tucson shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of comments on the shooting. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is just a few hours old so be patient and not hit it with a sledgehammer. Given some time, analysis can be provided.  It is unfortuate that Sarek was fighting with me and escalated it to an AFD on this (a different article) rather than allow some time for article improvement.  If an article is subjected to possible deletion, only an idiot would waste time fixing it.  End this AFD and I guarantee you improvement.  If none is made, then a 2nd AFD is possible.
 * Besides, this killing article is too long that several people said a section should be split off as is done here. However, already there are new sections about legislation and the aftermath, not just reactions.Madrid 2020 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mergethere wasn't a consensus on the talk page to make this. Also its listcruft --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   22:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the article is just hours old and it is transforming away from the list. new sections have been added.  New pictures, not found anywhere, added.  Give it time and it can be transformed to a good article. Madrid 2020 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no article like this for important public figures such as Reagan and the Pope, so this one should not exist either. It is listcruft. -- Diannaa (Talk) 22:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: an indiscriminite list of reactions. Already in the main article. Not news. Etc. -Atmoz (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Folks, the knee jerk reaction is to delete,  I understand but also note that several people think the reaction section to the killing article is too long. WP:SPLIT says if you think it is too long, to create a separate article.  Do not violate Wikipedia rules by prohibiting a split.  Thank you. Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer is not to split and plant elsewhere, but to get out the garden shears and start hacking away. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unneeded fork from 2011 Tucson shooting‎, where the consensus is that this material should not be split off. Article is a mess; most of it is copied from the initial article and the new stuff is listcruft. PhGustaf (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd argue for keep, as many articles pertaining to reactions to significant events exist and the political reactions to the Giffords shooting are worthy of encyclopaedic documentation, being a subject of much press coverage. While it is true that the article requires much rewriting, such as grouping reactions by type, subject, or source (media, congress, public etc), it does have the potential to be rewritten, and to be rewritten well.  Quærens talk / contributions 01:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. First, the only material not in the parent article is a list of unsurprisingly predictable condolences. Second, this isn't the Pope or the President of the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This falls squarely under WP:NOTNEWS. The intent here seems to have been to preserve the buzzwords that come in statements from politicians after any tragedy-- "thoughts and prayers", "deeply saddened", senseless violence, etc.  That may be new to some, but after enough tragedies that defy words, one realizes that the same words are used again and again. Mandsford 02:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe keep As of this minute, the reaction section of the main article is very short so this serves a purpose. But there could be edit warring in the main article.  Because of edit warring, this should be a keep or merge as merging keeps the history in case it is decided that the main article reaction section is to be short.  Merging would allow easy access to the information.  In contrast, the main article history is so huge that it is not practical to search it if some time later the information is desired. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete We are still going back and forth over this, but I believe that a sensibly sized Reactions section in the main article is all that is needed.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CHANCE and WP:DEMOLISH. The article is less than 24 hours old, and clearly notable. Consensus at 2011 Tucson shooting‎ regarding the split is currently evolving (the last edit in that discussion was made only a few hours ago). That discussion should be allowed to reach a conclusion before an AfD is considered. YardsGreen (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Splitting this off is inappropriate. The better choice is use a little editorial discretion. We do not need every single statement by every single elected official and their brother. -- RoninBK T C 17:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not the usual AFD so the closing administrator must be keenly aware of it. There are some who want a very short and concise reaction section.  Some of those people are campaigning for it in the main article and are violently opposed to this article.  Others want a lengthy reaction section in the main article, some of whom want to delete this article to make it more likely to happen.  The true and best consensus is to have a short reaction section in the main article and have this article.  That way the pro-short people get half of what they want (short reaction section) and the pro-long section people get half of what they want (a long reaction section, albeit in a different location).  A "delete" is NOT the consensus since some people get all of what they want and some get none.  Please be mindful of this. Madrid 2020 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * let's also look at policy Too many of these votes are "I don't like it". Let's see if this is notable.  The answer is that this is one of the few times that the reactions are notable.  The death of Tim Russert started a whole lot of reactions.  So did this.  The return of Baby Doc Duvalier to Haiti, not much reaction.  So notability, this qualifies.  As far as merge, a lot of people don't want this shoved into the shooting article.  Therefore, the answer is clear, which is keep even though some don't like it.  This is not a beauty contest.  True, this article could be improved a lot but nobody is going to waste their time under the threat of a gun(imminent deletion) Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep/rename as a content fork of 2011 Tucson shooting. I think a general name, like "Aftermath of the 2011 Tucson shooting" would be better, just as I was recommended to fork off Aftermath of the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 attack and Reactions to the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 attack from Northwest Airlines Flight 253. This ought to solve the issue of an indiscriminate listing of comments and make it a prose-y page that discusses results of the shooting, i.e. debates over gun control, etc. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and also per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is just a random list of "I'm sorry too" and it isn't the first bit encyclopedic.  SDY (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a memorial. No victims names are listed.  If the article is kept, there can be much further material about the gun debate, civility debate, as well as more analytical description of the widespread worldwide support for Giffords. Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete, per CSD G4. Articles for deletion/Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.  Nakon  23:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, the story has dominated the news for a week now and its aftermath has turned the political world on its head. The article in its current state is poor, so I would just fork everything from the main article to this one. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That was already done as a result of this afd. Nakon  02:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Totally unnecessary, unencyclopaedic, and possibly created to make a point, rather than meeting a perceived need. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment sine I've already registered my notvote above. Does the reaction to the event have a notability independent of the event itself?  Ironically, if this article were explicitly about the Palin brouhaha, it might actually be more encyclopedic, since a lot of that discussion became about Palin, rather than about the shooting itself.  Most of the rest of this is really just part of the shooting and should be split from the main article if and only if we decided to include longer coverage of everyone's wailing and gnashing of teeth.  SDY (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Andy the Grump's reasons pretty much. Sayerslle (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is a mess. It doesn't have a clear topic. It's a recreation of a deleted article. Etc.   Will Beback    talk    01:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a random amalgam of information codified into an article by an editor who hasn't exactly been in agreement with the consensus on various issues regarding this event. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't need a list of reactions as it's already covered in the main article. WereWolf (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa That's quite the wall of text, isn't it? The fact of the matter is, even though this kind of content seems relevant now, in a few months it's not going to be. We simply do not need this much information, and most of the material is just not notable. Why is it relevant to have a listing of what every famous political person thinks about this event? This only needs to be a good solid paragraph in the main article, not its own entire page. l'aquatique [talk]  21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This article is based on WP:RECENTISM and I was remiss in not mentioning it earlier. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do not prefer a separate article under normal circumstances and share the POV fork concerns, but as the main article 2011 Tucson shooting is presently 93KB and growing, WP:SPLIT does allow for this and the Reactions section is the largest section of that article. the prose itself is only at about 27KB, so the length argument has not yet been met. KimChee (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC) / 01:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu- thanks for finding that guideline! I knew there had to be something somewhere that would cover this sort of situation. KimChee- I see your point, but I also wonder how much of that 27kb we really even need? I think what I'm trying to say (I never know what I'm trying to say) is that while such a split might be supported by policy, if we apply common sense we may see that this material is not really contributing to the encyclopedia. l'aquatique [talk]  01:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is in essence the same article as previous deletion discussion which closed as speedy merge. CSD:G4 does not apply since it's not a copy-paste, but some of the same logic may be applicable.  SDY (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. We must follow the rules, not "I don't like it". The topic of the article is notable.  The reactions to the crime are so notable, even a President flew out to Arizona and Fidel Castro commented.  There is also continued political debate. The article CAN and WILL be improved but nobody in their right mind is going to improve the article with a knife (this AFD) to their throat.  This article is notable and there's a lot to write, so keep it.  If after a few months the article is crap, then you can say "we gave it a chance without holding a knife to its throat, but it is still crap."  Furthermore, deleting this will destroy a lot of references compiled that can help students research a paper.  Another point is that many here are so destructive; they want to get rid of the article and shrink the main article's reaction section to 2-3 sentences.  By keeping this, you make those people halfway happy (they get a short reaction section) and the people who want a long reaction section happy (they have a sub-article) which is a true consensus, rather than making half of the people mad and half thinking they are victors.  This was said above.  Finally, AFD is not a vote but a discussion.  Nobody for delete has been able to come up with a valid argument against the fact that this article covers notable topics and is, therefore, eligible for an article.  It is not simply a "My Condolences" list but a great article in the making. Madrid 2020 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we PLEASE avoid the unfortunate gun-to-the-head metaphor? -- RoninBK T C 18:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What I would like to see avoided is this kind of wikilawyering in the "closing admin notes". Please state your opinion above and avoid trying to circumvent the debate by making these kind of courtroom-style closing statements, if at all possible. l'aquatique [talk]  21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks to whomever fixed this...  l'aquatique [talk]  00:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep this has gotten a huge amount of coverage/reactions from many people. I think the reactions to the event are probably as notable as the shooting itself. Nergaal (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The age of the article is irrelevant, but the scope, which is entirely inappropriate and unencyclopaedic. This unneeded fork from 2011 Tucson shooting‎ is developing into a horrendous breach of WP:MEMORIAL and WP:QUOTEFARM of typical sound bites and sweet nothings a la: "Oh, aren't we all horrified by this atrocious tragedy and sad and unnecessary loss of life, may the per rot in hell [sic]". As for the gun debate, Plus ça change, Plus ça reste la même chose. We have that ad nauseum every time there is a spree shooting - it doesn't belong in articles for each event, and should be centralised at Gun politics in the United States or somesuch. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I know I was the one who pushed for it but consensus seems to be against the article at the moment as also poined out here: Talk:2011 Tucson shooting - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We have to we wary of what we call consensus. By some definitions, the world consensus is communist dicatatorship since Russia and China comprise near 1.5B people, far more than the America's 0.3B.  Wikipedia's rule mention notability, which this passes. Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This can easily be covered in the main article. I was stunned even to see that this article existed.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * False statement Jojhutton's statement is, unfortunately, false. As soon as a little is added, someone deletes it from the main article.  This article prevents edit warring and is also notable.  NOBODY disagrees that the reactions to the shooting are much bigger and notable than other crimes.  The article is not just "I'm sorry" comments but has the potential to be much more. Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, what? I disagree that this is any more notable than any other assassination attempt, mass shooting, etc.  l'aquatique [talk]  00:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * comment: no consideration to merge? I do not agree with merging but I can see the merits of that over delete. The edit histories would be kept as well as the references.  Merge is better than book burning (delete). Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – Basically it's a bunch of people who are expressing shock and dismay over the shooting. It's just a bunch of quotes thrown into a blender of sorts. Moreover, as Ohconfucius pointed out, Wikipedia is not a memorial or a quotefarm. –MuZemike 00:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is much more and writing is on hold. Why slave and write and have the stuff thrown in the trash in a few days?  There is commentary about political debate, Palin's involvement, details about how different and widespread the reactions, details of the memorial service, etc.  There are also many pictures that aren't in the main article and can't be because they would overwhelm the article. Madrid 2020 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I did a tiny bit of cleaning up and hid the images as they were everywhere in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree with edit as it ruins article, thus making it more likely a delete. It has already been established that the main shooting article editors do not want a reaction section or just a small one.  Since this covers the topic in detail and adds things other than condolences, it is a worthy keep. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2011 (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.