Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep per WP:SKCRIT 2d, "an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course", (non-admin closure) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The previous AfD had strong support to delete the whole article, and others supporting trimming it down. All efforts to trim this have been reverted, so I'm bring this back to AfD. There is no encyclopedic purpose to publishing the condolances of the leader of East Timor or Botswana for an attack in Europe. Since we can't trim this, delete the whole thing and redirect the page to the perfectly adiquate section on reactions at 2016 Brussels bombings Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to 2016 Brussels bombings. Considering that I copied the quotes to the article on Wikiquote, I don't think we can get away with outright deletion due to attribution of authors. Anyway, the Wikiquote article is almost up to scratch now and contains all of what was in here. Other than that, any prose could be easily merged into the main article from the revision history after redirect. For those arguing that these quotes should be kept as they are useful, why don't you just convert it to prose in the main article and then split it if it becomes too large at a later date?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  06:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and close Totally WP:POINTY nom, seeing as the previous discussion was only closed a few days ago.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of us expected to be able to trim the article back after the previous closure. Despite discussion, we came to a dead end and were unable to trim a single quote from the article. I have also completed a transwiki transfer since the previous AfD. So there are many new things to discuss on the table.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  06:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably best for an RfC on the talkpage, rather than this AfD.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Topic duplicates 2016 Brussels bombing AfD is the correct place for this discussion. Experienced editors know to comment on the topic, not other editors. Legacypac (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You do have a long history of disruption, with frivolous ANI cases that you start when you don't get your way.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy close, warn the nominator per WP:POINT.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep A disruptive, pointt nomination. Also an improper attempt to end a dispute through deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 2016 Brussels bombings. Keep the info in one place. And most "reactions" are so flimsy that they are hardly notable, not everything what can be sourced is automatically notable. No need to list each and every bodies angry reaction. The Banner talk 09:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Im sorry, but I have to agree with WP:POINT here. It sounds like you are saying "Okay so since my edits to trim down have been reverted, back to AfD this goes" Have you tried an RfC on the talk-page on what to trim down? Have there been discussions held to reach an agreement? Looking at the talk-page I see Talk:Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings please continue the discussion there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - disruptive and POV pushing behaviour concerning this article. Just close it. It has to be kept.BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have started a proposal over at Talk:Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings, feel free to throw out any additional ideas or comments you may have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Really no WP:POINT in re-opening this again days after the close. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. If the first AFD did not come to a consensus, why is there a second one less than a week afterward? If it is really not notable, nominate it in a few months. epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete A little soon, but that's just a technicality. Whenever it stops being too soon, this will still be too many words for something that's already summed up elsewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2016 (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.