Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2017 Catalonia attacks


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Reactions to the 2017 Catalonia attacks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Time to revisit this quote farm as it appears it has out-lived whatever use it once possessed -- so much so that no one bothered to rename it to couple with the main article! Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of information, and this collection of unanimous condemnations, rejected for the main page, is no exception. As with other similar articles I nominated, I have found the article on the incident sufficiently summarizes what is said here without WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; as a result, I do not advocate for a merge. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete boiler plate condemnations quote farm of little value or notability.Icewhiz (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikiversity. Could be original research. Could fall under a variety of educational categories. Michael Ten (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is detailed referencing (89 inline cites), it is well-researched, provides links to international reactions which are not easily obtainable, as a group, anywhere else and aids those studying differences in how world entities view specific phenomena of this nature. If there is contention that such lists of reactions should not exist, then rather than singling out a handful of articles, this should have been a mass nomination of all entries at Category:International reactions or, to go even further, Category:Reactions. If, on the other hand, the contention is that other "Reaction" events are more notable than this event or that the structures of the other "Reaction" articles are more adroitly formed than the structure of this article, then we should be made aware of any deficiencies, so that needed improvements may be made. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – indiscriminate collection of information and does not meet WP:LISTN. Consists of WP:PRIMARY materials – the reactions themselves, which are routine and do not stand out in any way. No encyclopedic relevance. Similar articles have been deleted in the recent past, such as:
 * Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Reactions to the Las Vegas concert shooting
 * Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks (3rd nomination) and more.
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Forgot that I renamed the page as consistency with previously titled "2017 Catalonian attacks", currently 2017 Barcelona attacks. If kept, the title should be reverted back to "Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack". No opinion yet on the list, which would be either duplicated or moved to Wikiquote. George Ho (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2017 Barcelona attacks. Does not stand as an independent page. Some content can be merged. My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable reactions to a notable historic event. Plenty of good sourcing. Third party sources.BabbaQ (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable Kanatonian (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Indiscriminate quote farm of no actual value. Anything in it of ACTUAL value can be quoted in the main article. --Calton | Talk 12:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Couldn't put it any better than those above - It's nothing more than a quote farm and these condemnations are essentially boilerplates - Unless someone condemned it in a way that was I guess notable then fine but all of these quotes are boilerplates and aren't encyclopedic information. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete'per nom and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a quote farm, plus WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  22:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:SYNTH. Important comments should be merged to main article. Lorstaking (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTQUOTE. Unlike other more fully developed reaction articles, like Reactions to the Catalan independence referendum, 2017 or Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden, this article is probably too indiscriminate and insignificant to be included in the encyclopedia. Name goes here (talk | contribs) 04:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:QUOTEFARM. HastyBriar321 (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:HastyBriar321 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:DisuseKid. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - The subject is not independently notable. This information could be included on the 2017 Catalonia attacks page, but as a standalone page serves only as a quote list. Something like this could be hosted on Wikiquote, but doesn't meet our inclusion criteria here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:31, 14 November 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.