Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing


 * 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Fuzheado &#124; Talk 02:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't consider this article notable according to WP:NOTE and WP:NNEWS. I don't see any encyclopedic relevance. The important condolences are mentioned in 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Creating a list over countries who condemn terrorism is just not relevant. It's not like we in years will search for which countries condemned the attack in Manchester 2017. We should hold it as we did under all the other attacks: a general political sentence about how the world condemns terrorism and only mentioning outstanding reactions - which perfectly fits under the section reactions in the event article. We don't need a new article about condolences. Rævhuld (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing

Seriously? And you didn't even bother making a page before doing your drive-by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarysa (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I followed WP:HOWTODELETE. As you can read there, I first have to tag the page, then press the link that occurs on the saved article and I then have to fill out the formula on two pages. That takes 5 minutes. A little more patience next time, please.--Rævhuld (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a comment on this - WP:HOWTODELETE is nothing more than a guide, not an official policy. Jayden (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A good tip for future reference might be to work with two tabs. Have the article you want to nominate for deletion open in both tabs, add the afd to both, then press the preview button on both. You should see a preview of what the page looks like, so you can use one of the tabs to progress to the afd page, then save both together once you're finished. Might avoid further drama. Just a thought. This is Paul (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And you could've just as easily created this page using Twinkle. That takes at most 10 seconds to do everything (including creating this page and editing the page up for AfD), plus the time it takes to write out your AfD argument.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 21:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the great tips. But please consider writing it into the guide. That is the thing people follow. If the guide is wrong, new user like me are doing it wrong. And to be fair: that is not really our fault. And it might be that the guide is not living up to Wikipedia policy, but then again, change the guideline. But thank you for the tips. I will use it in the future. Especially Twinkle was a great tip <3--Rævhuld (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * KEEP: Has precedent. -- sarysa (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I also move for Speedy close, for reasons given by User:Power~enwiki. -- sarysa (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity, aside from precedent, it is needed to not clutter the main article. At the time of the split, the two articles were around 20k each, now they're over 30k each and rising. It's also useful as it records the subtle variations in international reactions, such as Iran's comparison with a domestic incident. -- sarysa (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are those subtle variations discussed in reliable sources? If not doing so here would be WP:OR. If there is no discussion or other prose about the quotes then why are you adding them here not Wikiquote? Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, every single one has a source. At least one Wikipedian is double-checking sources. (I constructed most of the country list myself from an old list that merely listed countries and references) As for why not Wikiquote, I suppose the #1 reason would be that it's a mix of quoting and paraphrasing, like the Orlando reaction article. Aside from that, it would be helpful for you to describe how Wikiquote could improve the article. -- sarysa (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: As above. You couldn't even be bothered to make a page explaining your reason for the AfD? Jayden (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can this be speedy closed? Jayden (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: As stated above, there are numerous other similar pages. No clear reason why this one should be deleted. Kenyan105 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: We do have precedence for this kind of thing, and it will no doubt grow into being more than how the nominator envisages it. This is Paul (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 21:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * KEEP removing it. Its good to see the reactions from around the world which can keep it historically accurate and is a good thing to keep for future use. If you want to remove the page, move all the reactions to the main page Winsocker (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a repository of quotes from around the world - that's the purpose of Wikiquote. Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy close this could be moved into 2017_Manchester_Arena_bombing, but there's no possible remedy from the AfD process. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Several other pages like this one, so there is no need to delete. Tom29739 [ talk ] 21:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – Just a small notice about WP:OTHERSTUFF existing. Also keep in mind WP:AFDFORMAT when discussing if that applies.  Adog 104  Talk to me 22:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, and I'll admit to being very dismissive in my argument. It originally seemed to be a drive-by tag, which is why. Will clarify my arguments. -- sarysa (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem; just saw everyone following suite and just needed clarification for better consensus in the latter. (Also another note about the view stats, there's also another clause about that, make sure to review please (no hard feelings)). :D  Adog 104  Talk to me 23:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Retain for now. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete There are three parts to this article, a WP:QUOTEFARM that belongs on Wikiquote if anywhere, a collection of trivia and responses from non-notable people and organisations, a duplicates of what is in the main article. There is nothing here that needs an article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete' These "reactions to" pages are all unencyclopedic cruft containing canned statements in a WP:QUOTEFARM method that violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. The attack is notable. The reactions to it from governments and terrorist organizations is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:QUOTEFARM, aside from being only a guideline rather than a rule, is moot as virtually everything here is paraphrased to begin with. WP:INDISCRIMINATE actually recommends article splits (as had been done) but I'd also like to add that collating the reactions of nations is inherently dangerous. You risk misrepresenting a nation's reaction by trying to fit them into into "close enough" categories. World leaders also have a far lower threshold for notability than the examples on that page. As for WP:NOTNEWS, people seem to love to shoehorn things that don't belong. The reactions have been made. They are now history. -- sarysa (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm putting the reasoning I used at the AfD for International reactions to the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt here, as it is the same reason why I think it should be kept: "I don't believe this is an "indiscriminate" collection of information, per the reasoning at WP:DISCRIMINATE, collections of information brought together with a reasonable amount of thought, care, and distinctions would certainly not violate policy, as there are distinctions about which quotes can be put on the page, as a tweet from a random person wouldn't be put on, but a statement from the American President would be. But if people really don't like these quotes existing on Wikipedia at all, maybe Wikiquote would be a good place for them, as opposed to removing them all together?" And then have a redirect?  Seagull123  Φ  23:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * STRONG OPPOSE/KEEP per Sarysa and splitting off from the article.Lihaas (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Technical note. I have changed the "oppose" !votes to "keep" so that they can be processed by the !vote counter. WWGB (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep In the future, academics, researchers and other interested parties can use this page and others like it to assess trends in how various governments and public figures have reacted to a range of world events. It's not just that most reactions are negative but is is of significance how reactions are expressed. Greenshed (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Absolutely no reason to delete it. To do so would be shameful as within this article the world's human response to a heinous attack is properly documented. 86.152.144.97 (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per 's argument. (121.219.250.63 (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC))
 * Keep, and Close - No need to drag this out for the full 7 days. An encyclopedic fork that prevents the main article from becoming cluttered, the article is not just a handful of quotes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - as per Sarysa. Autarch (talk) 02:08, 24 May 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.