Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords


 * 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   speedy merge to 2011 Tucson shooting. Blatant merge, apparently already done. There was no need to take this to AfD. Fences &amp;  Windows  23:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I understand that this was created as a fork from 2011_Tucson_shooting because the section was too long, but it seems the solution here is to pare down the content. Quoting a long list of politicans' reactions doesn't seem particularly useful or encyclopedic. VQuakr (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, or Merge with the main article. If length is a problem, the list can be pared down.  Nakon  23:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into the shooting article. 65.94.44.243 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Kelly  hi! 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge I completely agree, especially since all of these quotes are nearly identical. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge back into 2011 Tucson shooting. There is no need for a separate article on the reactions of the earlier shooting today, this is disproportionate to similar incidents. This reeks of a high level of recentism. –MuZemike 23:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, WP:NOTNEWS, a list of reactions from important figures in the main article is enough.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge Main article is not too big to hold this information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Merging would be EDIT WARRING. Already people have said to cut it out of the shooting article citing this sub-article. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merging does not surmount to an edit war. And who said it should be spun out? –MuZemike 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit warring takes place without consensus. If there is sufficient consensus is formed here to merge rather than delete the content, that is not edit warring, it's consensus.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone removed huge chunks from the 2011 article citing that there was a sub-article. The problem is that there should be a Wikipedia mechanism where there is a settlement discussion.  Otherwise, one discussion says "A" and the other says "B", conflicting discussions.  THIS IS THE MAIN POINT THAT SHOULD EMERGE FROM THIS DISCUSSION, THAT THERE SHOULD BE A WIKIPEDIA PROCESS WHERE THERE IS OVERALL DISCUSSION. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is AfD; the only point that will emerge from this discussion is whether or not this article should be deleted (or indeed whether it should be merged into another article). Shouting by typing in uppercase is considered disruptive, please make your point without shouting down others.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to the main article. (WP:NOTNEWS) Not all of these quotes are needed but we can definitely add some of them. WE are currently discussing the matter over at the main pages' talk page.-- White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and trim as needed. These things settle out over time, but it's a good deal easier to manage if it's all in one place. Antandrus  (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2011 Tucson shooting Swimnteach (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge The reaction to the incident is not notable by itself. It's only notable in relation to the shooting incident. Many of these quotes are redundant and it's not important that a reader know what ever Representative said about the shooting. —Ute in DC (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Looks like the content has already been merged by the creator. I suggest closure (as well as everybody stepping back a bit). –MuZemike 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2011 Tucson shooting. There's a list of reactions on the main article already. Try to avoid deleting any reaction unless the section is too long, or is already listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.201.48 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and deal with any length issues by considering which reactions from the more important figures should stay. Adambro (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * snow close as merge- there's already the discussion on the main shooting page. Per WP:BEFORE, since this could easily be handled with a merge, there was really no need for an AFD to even be opened. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close to Keep The main article has a number of people who only want Boehner's and Obama's reaction so that is why a separate article is needed.Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you even read WP:SNOW? Nakon  23:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, typo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakkapeliitta (talk • contribs)
 * No problem. Nakon  23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge into 2011 Tucson shooting. KimChee (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and reduce in size - we don't need a record of every single politician's pronouncements about this atrocity.Mattnad (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, Expand if necessary. Title should be Reaction to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.Marcus Qwertyus   23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy merge with 2011 Tucson shooting. Tadá. Diego Grez (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Let me quote something already The content has already been merged back into the article by the Nom, and trimmed down per WP:UNDUE If this does have it's own article it would have to be trimmed down as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge No need for stand-alone article. Gage (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. Repeating what others have said, not needed, NOTNEWS. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 8 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.