Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reaction to the 2017 Finsbury Park attack


 * 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 merge to 2017 Finsbury Park attack. (non-admin closure) -  The   Magnificentist  09:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Reaction to the 2017 Finsbury Park attack

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Spinoff from 2017 Finsbury Park attack, and this is just a quote farm. An unnecessary list of people and countries just saying "we're thinking of you, and this attack was bad". No encyclopedic value. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with nomination This should be in the article about the actual event. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect: Not enough information here to justify a standalone article. All of this could be included in the main article. But there's no harm in keeping this as a search term. This is Paul (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: If it is merged, then I feel that in view of length it would be better pared back (which would lead to some difficult choices about which quotations to keep), or the list reworded as prose with many of the full quotations moved to footnotes, but not simply pasted as-is. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge the domestic responses back, and only the relevant international ones (like nations whose citizens were injured, possibly; nobody really cares what Bulgaria or Singapore had to say). ansh 666 20:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge seems appropriate to me. The parent article is not overly long, so this content should be moved over to there, then possibly trimmed to serve as a summary, if the list of quotes is inappropriate. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and decrease the number of reactions. sikander (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge but don't delete any individual country's reaction while moving it to the main article. Instead, we could have an identical note at the bottom of the page such as appears on the 2017 Westminster attack page. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge but trim some of the material so the main page does not become the new host to a quote farm.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a pointless list of "thoughts and prayers". It would clutter the main article with a long list of people saying the same thing.RustlingLeaves (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. --Rævhuld (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect - WP:NOTNEWS, most of the reaction is ordinary to most reactions to incidents such as these, sorry but few people care what the head of state of the Bahamas has to say about this event. The reaction section is already adequately summarized in the main article. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 23:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge ; these reactions are no more unique than those of any other terrorist attack or disaster. MeanMotherJr (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2017 Finsbury Park attack per WP:SIZE. If/when more sections are added with things like political after effects, or long term stuff then we can talk about a possible split. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per Knowledgekid87's reason. AtlasDuane (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and fast. We have people on the main article's talk page seriously arguing that an anti-Muslim hate group's response should be cited because at present all the "organisations" cited are "Muslim groups". This still isn't true, but it would be easier to argue if the opinions of the presidents of France and Ireland were already there as well as those of unspecified local politicians. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect I agree with most of the reasons given, not enough to warrant it's own article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.